On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700 > Robert Morell <rmorell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is >> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it >> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead. > > NAK. This needs at the very least the approval of all rights holders for > the files concerned and all code exposed by this change. Well, for my contributions to dmabuf, I don't object.. and I think because we are planning to use dma-buf in userspace for dri3 / dri-next, I think that basically makes it a userspace facing kernel infrastructure which would be required for open and proprietary drivers alike. So I don't see much alternative to making this EXPORT_SYMBOL(). Of course, IANAL. BR, -R > Also I'd note if you are trying to do this for the purpose of combining > it with proprietary code then you are still in my view as a (and the view > of many other) rights holder to the kernel likely to be in breach > of the GPL requirements for a derivative work. You may consider that > formal notification of my viewpoint. Your corporate legal team can > explain to you why the fact you are now aware of my view is important to > them. > > Alan > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel