From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (via idr) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:49:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4572C7C8.5050900@redhat.com> References: <457040C4.1000002@redhat.com> <20061201085227.2463b185.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20061201172136.GA11669@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <20061202053013.GC26389@cynthia.pants.nu> <45723CDB.1060304@redhat.com> <20061202125851.GA30187@cynthia.pants.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:49539 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757961AbWLCMtP (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:49:15 -0500 To: Brad Boyer In-Reply-To: <20061202125851.GA30187@cynthia.pants.nu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Brad Boyer wrote: > > This sounds slightly petty to me. For example, generic_file_read() is > there just to make it easier to implement the read callback, but it > isn't required. In fact, I would think that any filesystem complex > enough to be worth making proprietary would not use it. However, that > doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for marking it GPL-only. The > functionality in question is easier to reimplement, but that doesn't > make it right to force it on people just because of a license choice. > Yes, most filesystems have their own scheme for managing i_ino assignment, so this is primarily for "pseudo-filesystems". Stuff like pipefs, sockfs, /proc, etc... >> I'm certainly open to discussion though. Is there a compelling reason to >> open this up to proprietary software authors? > > I don't think there is a compelling reason to open it up since the > functionality could be reimplemented if needed, but I also think > the only reason it is being marked GPL-only is the very common > attitude that there should not be any proprietary modules. > > To be honest, I think it looks bad for someone associated with redhat > to be suggesting that life should be made more difficult for those > who write proprietary software on Linux. The support from commercial > software is a major reason for the success of the RHEL product line. > I can't imagine that this attitude will affect support from software > companies as long as there is a demand for software on Linux, but > it isn't exactly supportive. > I have no problem with someone writing, selling and supporting proprietary modules. Knock yourself out. I just don't see a reason why I should contribute code to such an effort. Still though, this was coded in part on company time. I certainly don't want to go against Red Hat's policy in such a matter, so I'll do some due diligence internally as to how this should be done. In the meantime, does anyone have objections or comments on this approach on technical grounds? Thanks, Jeff