From: Vishal Mansur <vmansur@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: non-GPL export for eeh_dev_check_failure
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:59:29 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53EB13D9.5050501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1407726995.4508.64.camel@pasglop>
On 8/11/2014 8:46 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 15:51 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:12:09 +0530
>> Vishal Mansur <vmansur@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> EEH kernel services are inconsistently exported by the
>>> kernel. eeh_check_failure is exported for any use, but
>>> eeh_dev_check_failure is exported only for GPL use.
>>> While eeh_check_failure is implemented for a specific
>>> purpose to be used by services such as readl, it is
>>> not suited for a purpose where caller needs eeh status.
>>> This functionality is provided by eeh_dev_check_failure.
>>>
>>> This patch relaxes the export for eeh_dev_check_failure
>>> to make it consistent with eeh_check_failure() and
>>> usable by non-GPL modules.
>>
>> The GPL covers all derivative works. Tweaking this doesn't magically
>> allow you to use the feature in non GPL code. Your legal department can I
>> am sure explain in detail further.
>
> This is an interesting case... I assume this has to do with a well known
> GPU manufacturer...
>
> The PCI APIs are generally exported in such a way that a non-GPL driver
> can use them (regardless of whether one considers a non-GPL driver to be
> legal here or not, this is besides the point).
>
> eeh_dev_check_failure() can be considered as powerpc specific extension
> of the PCI API for use by PCI drivers and as such, it *could* be
> construed that we should be consistent (and consistent with
> eeh_check_failure()) and expose it as an EXPORT_SYMBOL without the GPL
> suffix.
>
> So I'm somewhat tempted to take this patch, but Vishal, the driver in
> question could, I suppose, as a workaround, use a readl to some scratch
> register of some description, no ?
Ben, calling readl to some scratch register will be same as calling
eeh_check_failure, caller will not be able to get eeh status.
Hence for the purpose where caller wants to know eeh status during
a bad register read, it can not be worked around using readl.
Thanks,
Vishal
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>> Alan
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vishal Mansur <vmansur@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: non-GPL export for eeh_dev_check_failure
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:59:29 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53EB13D9.5050501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1407726995.4508.64.camel@pasglop>
On 8/11/2014 8:46 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 15:51 +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:12:09 +0530
>> Vishal Mansur <vmansur@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> EEH kernel services are inconsistently exported by the
>>> kernel. eeh_check_failure is exported for any use, but
>>> eeh_dev_check_failure is exported only for GPL use.
>>> While eeh_check_failure is implemented for a specific
>>> purpose to be used by services such as readl, it is
>>> not suited for a purpose where caller needs eeh status.
>>> This functionality is provided by eeh_dev_check_failure.
>>>
>>> This patch relaxes the export for eeh_dev_check_failure
>>> to make it consistent with eeh_check_failure() and
>>> usable by non-GPL modules.
>>
>> The GPL covers all derivative works. Tweaking this doesn't magically
>> allow you to use the feature in non GPL code. Your legal department can I
>> am sure explain in detail further.
>
> This is an interesting case... I assume this has to do with a well known
> GPU manufacturer...
>
> The PCI APIs are generally exported in such a way that a non-GPL driver
> can use them (regardless of whether one considers a non-GPL driver to be
> legal here or not, this is besides the point).
>
> eeh_dev_check_failure() can be considered as powerpc specific extension
> of the PCI API for use by PCI drivers and as such, it *could* be
> construed that we should be consistent (and consistent with
> eeh_check_failure()) and expose it as an EXPORT_SYMBOL without the GPL
> suffix.
>
> So I'm somewhat tempted to take this patch, but Vishal, the driver in
> question could, I suppose, as a workaround, use a readl to some scratch
> register of some description, no ?
Ben, calling readl to some scratch register will be same as calling
eeh_check_failure, caller will not be able to get eeh status.
Hence for the purpose where caller wants to know eeh status during
a bad register read, it can not be worked around using readl.
Thanks,
Vishal
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
>
>> Alan
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-13 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-05 14:42 [PATCH] powerpc: non-GPL export for eeh_dev_check_failure Vishal Mansur
2014-08-05 14:51 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-08-05 14:51 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-08-11 3:16 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-08-11 3:16 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-08-13 7:29 ` Vishal Mansur [this message]
2014-08-13 7:29 ` Vishal Mansur
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-08-05 14:35 Vishal Mansur
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53EB13D9.5050501@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=vmansur@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.