Re: [PATCH v4] module: Rename EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES to EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES

Christian Brauner
2025-08-19T09:44:57Z

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>
>
> On 15/08/2025 07.25, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:54:43AM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2025 07.18, Christian Brauner wrote:j
> >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:28:47 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>> Christoph suggested that the explicit _GPL_ can be dropped from the
> >>>> module namespace export macro, as it's intended for in-tree modules
> >>>> only. It would be possible to restrict it technically, but it was
> >>>> pointed out [2] that some cases of using an out-of-tree build of an
> >>>> in-tree module with the same name are legitimate. But in that case those
> >>>> also have to be GPL anyway so it's unnecessary to spell it out in the
> >>>> macro name.
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> Ok, so last I remember we said that this is going upstream rather sooner
> >>> than later before we keep piling on users. If that's still the case I'll
> >>> take it via vfs.fixes unless I hear objections.
> >>
> >> This used to go through Masahiro's kbuild tree. However, since he is not
> >> available anymore [1] I think it makes sense that this goes through the modules
> >> tree. The only reason we waited until rc1 was released was because of Greg's
> >> advise [2]. Let me know if that makes sense to you and if so, I'll merge this
> >> ASAP.
> >
> > At this point it would mean messing up all of vfs.fixes to drop it from
> > there. So I'd just leave it in there and send it to Linus.
>
> Got it. I was waiting for confirmation before taking it into the modules tree,
> and I agree that at this point it makes sense to keep it in vfs.fixes.
>
> > Next time I know where it'll end up.
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by this?

Next time I know that you are responsible for taking such patches. :)