* Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 08:22 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > +int set_pages_array_wt(struct page **pages, int addrinarray)
> > > +{
> > > + return _set_pages_array(pages, addrinarray, _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WT);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_pages_array_wt);
> >
> > So by default we make new APIs EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(): we
> > don't want proprietary modules mucking around with new code
> > PAT interfaces, we only want modules we can analyze and fix
> > in detail.
>
> Right. I have one question for this case. This
> set_pages_array_wt() extends the set_pages_array_xx()
> family, which are all exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL()
> today. In this case, should we keep them exported in the
> consistent manner, or should we still use GPL when adding
> a new one?
Still keep it GPL, it's a new API that old modules
obviously don't use.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>