On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 11:21 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:08AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 09:12 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:24:14PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > > > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > On Monday 16 April 2007 20:50, Larry Finger wrote: > > > > > > > >> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ void free_ieee80211(struct net_device *d > > > > >> > > > > >> static int debug = 0; > > > > >> u32 ieee80211_debug_level = 0; > > > > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ieee80211_debug_level); > > > > > > > > > > We don't use the _GPL suffix in mac80211. > > > > > > > > Upon inspection, neither does most of ieee80211. It is now changed. > > > > > > You are strongly encouraged to use the _GPL version for new symbol > > > exports, especially those which are fundamentally internal to > > > in-kernel subsystems and/or have no reasonable usage by drivers. > > > FWIW, this symbol would seem to fulfill both of those criteria. > > > > > > If you do not object, I would prefer the _GPL version of the patch. > > > > What's the rationale for mac80211 _not_ using _GPL exports? I thought > > most new exports were pretty much required to be _GPL (otherwise > > somebody would NAK it) unless it was really, really necessary that they > > weren't. > > An argument against _GPL exports for mac80211 might be leaving the > exports alone as a token of gratitude or respect towards Devicescape > for having seeded the development of mac80211 with a big chunk of code. > While I do thank Devicescape for their support, I'm not sure that > this argument would be truly compelling. > > A more presuasive argument in favor of this pragmatism is that > it would be counter-productive to discourage driver availability. > At this point regulatory issues are still enough of a spectre that > some vendors will want the option of offering non-GPL drivers. > Such drivers would clearly not be redistributable, but there are > arguments that allow for such drivers (i.e. "the user installed > the driver -- not us", etc like Nvidia video drivers). Of course, > no one likes enabling this kind of "bad behaviour". Completely agree; my observations are based on mails from people like gregkh and christoph h (who seem to be most vocal in this area), and they alone are certainly not representative of kernel policy. I've seen more than a few things NAK-ed by various people due to symbol exports, or at least serious questions raised about _why_ they are non-GPL. So we'd better at least be able to come up with reasons why one was chosen over the other. I don't particularly care one way or the other. I guess the only way we find out is if somebody speaks up when a merge happens :) Dan > Probably the best reason in favor of leaving them as-is is that they > were written that way by their original author(s). > > Should I ask for opinionated discussion on the matter? :-) > > John - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
