On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:38:36PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 6/4/2019 3:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:02:58PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 6/4/2019 10:35 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > From: Israel Rukshin <israelr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > This is a preparation for signature verbs API re-design. In the new > > > > > design a single MR with IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY type will be used to perform > > > > > the needed mapping for data integrity operations. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Israel Rukshin <israelr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <maxg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> > > > > Looks good, but thinks like this that are very Linux specific really > > > > should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > > > Well we used the convention of other exported functions in this .h file. > > > > > > If the maintainers are not against that, we can fix it. > > > > > > Jason/Leon/Doug ? > > Since it is in a .c file that is dual licensed I have a hard time > > justifying the _GPL prefix. > > > > Although I would agree with CH that it does seem to be very Linux > > specific. > > > > Honestly, I've never seen a clear description of when to use one or > > the other choice. > > I'm also not familiar with licensing stuff. > > I guess you prefer using the common EXPORT_SYMBOL for verbs.c functions, > correct ? Yes, it is much easier for us, instead of trying to pick specific license for specific function. Thanks
