Hi Hans, On Thursday 11 October 2012 13:36:45 Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote: > > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share > > > buffers for zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that > > > several popular DRM drivers are closed source. So we have a choice > > > between keeping the export symbols GPL and forcing those closed-source > > > drivers to make their own incompatible API, thus defeating the whole > > > point of DMABUF, or using EXPORT_SYMBOL and letting the closed source > > > vendors worry about the legality. They are already using such functions > > > (at least nvidia is), so they clearly accept that risk. > > > > Then they can accept the risk of ignoring EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and > > calling into it anyway can't they. Your argument makes no rational sense > > of any kind. > > Out of curiosity: why do we have both an EXPORT_SYMBOL and an > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL if there is no legal difference? > > And if there is a difference between the two, then what is it? As far as I understand, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL means "I consider closed-source kernel modules as a GPL violation, you can have a different opinion, but then don't use my APIs". -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
