On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 11:54:54AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I don’t think I or has said we should try to make these interfaces
> immutable.
How else would you have a stable interface for OOT modules? If at all,
that is.
> What I’m saying is that, since we’re exporting the symbol anyway
> and it’s not particularly Linuxy, that we shouldn’t say that only
> *GPL* out-of-tree modules may use it. It seems like anyone who wants
> to put the effort into tracking which kernel has which symbols and is
> willing to accept the utter instability of the interface may use it.
This is just silly: when we change it next time, it'll be the same
crying again. No, we don't want to do that. This keeps happening with
all kinds of symbols being exported and unexported.
> So if we ever unexport the symbol entirely, I won’t object.
Yah, and you'll break them again. That's just unnecesary pain each time.
> I object to what I consider to be the inappropriate claim that it’s
> a *GPL* export.
Yes, that is the problem. Jiri alluded to it too - I don't think it is
clear to people involved - me included - what exports should be done and
how. And what assurances - if any - we're giving.
> (I actually hope we unexport it once simd_get() and friends land —
> they’re a much better API, and we should migrate over to it.)
Same problem as above with those.
That's why we need some sort of an explicit ruling all sides will adhere
to.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
