Re: [PATCH 00/20] MODULE_LICENSE removals, fifth tranche
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] MODULE_LICENSE removals, fifth tranche
- From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 17:14:58 +0100
- Cc: mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-modules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-trace-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-trace-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20230228130215.289081-1-nick.alcock@oracle.com>
- References: <20230228130215.289081-1-nick.alcock@oracle.com>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 01:01:55PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote:
> This series, based on current modules-next, is part of a treewide cleanup
> suggested by Luis Chamberlain, to remove the LICENSE_MODULE usage from
> files/objects that are not tristate. Due to recent changes to kbuild, these
> uses are now problematic. See the commit logs for more details.
Why isn't kbuild fixed instead? These files can have MODULE_AUTHOR()
and other macros when built into the kernel, what is so special about
MODULE_LICENSE() that prevents this from working properly?
There should not be a need to remove these markings in my opinion, why
treat one MODULE_* macro more special than others?
thanks,
greg k-h
[Index of Archives]
[Linux USB Development]
[Linux USB Development]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite Hiking]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]