From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Hildner Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:20:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] altix: export sn_pcidev_info_get Message-Id: <43FACD69.4020602@hob.de> List-Id: References: <20060214162337.GA16954@sgi.com> <20060220201713.GA4992@infradead.org> <20060221024710.GB30226@sgi.com> <1140508994.3082.16.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Mark Maule , Christoph Hellwig , akpm@osdl.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arjan van de Ven schrieb: >On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 20:47 -0600, Mark Maule wrote: > > >>On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 08:17:14PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:23:37AM -0600, Mark Maule wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Export sn_pcidev_info_get. >>>> >>>> >>>Tony or Andrew please back this out again. The only reason SGI wants this is >>>to support their illegal graphics driver, and no core code uses it. >>> >>>And Mark, please stop submitting such patches. >>> >>> >>All I'm doing by exporting sn_pcidev_info_get is allowing a module to use >>the SGI SN_PCIDEV_BUSSOFT() macro which will tell a driver which piece of >>altix PCI hw its device is sitting behind (e.g. PCIIO_ASIC_TYPE_TIOCP et. al). >> >>While I acknowledge that the gfx driver folks requested this, I don't >>understand what is "illegal" about this export, or the driver which wants >>to use it. What am I missing here? >> >> > >so you would have no objection to making this a _GPL export ? > Hi Folks, sn_* symbols are "their" symbols so I can't see any legitimation for anyone else to not let them export their symbols as they want. They are doing a great job on linux to make it run scalable on the biggest machines on earth. Or don't you like the idea of running Linux on those supercomputers? Christian