Am Freitag, den 24.07.2020, 16:18 +0200 schrieb Bjørn Mork: > > On July 21, 2020 11:00:08 AM GMT+02:00, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2020, 20:40 +0200 schrieb Bjørn Mork: > > > > > > @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ static void usbnet_cdc_update_filter(struct usbnet > > > > *dev) > > > USB_CTRL_SET_TIMEOUT > > > ); > > > } > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usbnet_cdc_update_filter); > > > > Hi, > > > > this function is pretty primitive. In fact it more or less > > is a straight take from the spec. Can this justify the _GPL > > version? > > Maybe not? I must admit I didn't put much thought into it. > > I will not object to changing it. And you're the boss anyway :-) Well, it has been applied. I don't care enough to change it unless we are violating a policy. I am looking for some ground rules on that issue. Leading us to the thorny issue of binary modules, yes I know. Yet up to now it was my understanding that plain EXPORT_SYMBOL is the default and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL needs a reason. Now, I like the GPL as much as everybody else and I will not challenge people on their reason if they state it and I am willing to assume that there is a reason if the code behind the symbol is substantial. My job as maintainer is to check things and to ensure some consistency. And I am seeing a certain lack of consistency here. As I do not want to make developers unhappy I would very much appreciate some guide lines I can point at. I really want to preclude some lawyers sending me conflicting patches in the future. I fear this coming. Regards Oliver
