From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: buffer cache Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:18:13 +0100 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030916101813.GA26576@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <1063689231.788.63.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Bryan Henderson , Greg KH , Jan Hudec , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:6036 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261825AbTIPKTG (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:19:06 -0400 To: David Woodhouse Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1063689231.788.63.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse wrote: > I accept the idea. I also accept the idea that said module writer can > also write all his own include files _too_, and avoid even having to > have a kernel tree around at all. I don't think you can entertain that idea, because... > I think he'd have to be on crack, but I do accept that he _can_ do that. ...to write his own files which allow modules to work with the kernel would require duplicating the existing include files in great detail - perhaps enough to count as a derived work. In other words, it's widely believed that he _can't_ do that. Fwiw I don't have any problem with this. -- Jamie ps. It may be possible, after all people have written binary modules for other operating systems purely by reverse engineering the operating system, starting with no source. Perhaps that's what you're advocating ;)