From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261429AbVGDFpq (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:45:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261425AbVGDFpq (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:45:46 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:2964 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261440AbVGDFou (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2005 01:44:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:44:41 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Michal Jaegermann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A "new driver model" and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL question Message-ID: <20050704054441.GA19936@kroah.com> References: <20050703171202.A7210@mail.harddata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050703171202.A7210@mail.harddata.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > It dawned on me only now that a "new driver model" introduced > in patches from GKH export symbols like that: > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create); > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_destroy); > > and so on. The problem is that corresponding old symbols, which > are still present in 2.6.12, were exported > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(class_simple_create); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(class_simple_destroy); > .... > > This creates a problem. There exist out-of-tree drivers which are > using those symbols Where? What drivers? > and, even if sources are available, are not > licensed GPL for whatever reasons. No, I am not the author of any > of those so I cannot do very much about re-licensing. As an effect > a conversion to a "new driver model", even if simple, does not work. > In particular I bumped into that with Myrinet card drivers. Then take it up with them. Users of those symbols have had many months advance notice that this was going to happen. > Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL deliberate and if yes then > what considerations dictated it, other then the patch author wrote > it that way, and what drivers in question are supposed to use when > this change will show up in the mainline? It looks that 2.6.13 > will do this. Please see the archives for the answers to these questions. thanks, greg k-h