Am 04.05.2019 um 02:47 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
* Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Please don't start this. We have everything _GPL that is used for FPU
related code and only a few functions are exported because KVM needs it.
That's not completely true. There are a lot of static inlines out there,
which basically made it possible for external modules to use FPU (in some
way) when they had kernel_fpu_[begin|end]() available.
I personally don't care about ZFS a tiny little bit; but in general, the
current situation with _GPL and non-_GPL exports is simply not nice. It's
not really about licensing (despite the name), it's about 'internal vs
external', which noone is probably able to define properly.
But that's exactly what licensing *IS* about: the argument is that
'internal' interfaces are clear proof that the binary module is actually
a derived work of the kernel.
Using fpu code in kernel space in a kernel module is a derived work of
the kernel itself?
dont get me wrong, but this is absurd. i mean you limit the use of cpu
instructions. the use
of cpu instructions should be free of any licensing issue. i would even
argument you are violating
the license of the cpu ower given to the kernel by executing it, by
restricting its use for no reason
Sebastian
