Re: [PATCH 07/13] RFC: pnfs: full mount/umount infrastructure

Trond Myklebust
2010-09-13T16:56:18Z

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 16:37 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> On 2010-09-13 14:29, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:24 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> >> On 2010-09-11 03:07, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:58 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(pnfs_register_layoutdriver);
> >>>>
> >>>> Al exports from nfs.ko needs to be _GPL - this is in no way a public
> >>>> API, just an internal subdivision of the nfs client.
> >>>
> >>> ACK. We're not committing to supporting a stable ABI here in any way,
> >>> shape or form...
> >>
> >> OK, not yet.
> >>
> >> However, on the longer run I'd like us to consider formalizing
> >> the kABI for non-GPLed layout drivers.
> >>
> >> I think that this is a great selling point as it fully materializes the
> >> extensibility of the layout-type / layout-driver design model.
> >
> > No. I'm not committing to a kabi, ever...
>
> Care to explain your reasoning in some more details?

It has already been laid out in Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt.
It boils down to the following:

1) I don't _ever_ want to have to deal with debugging problems that
might involve binary-only modules.
2) I want to be able to change interfaces in order to optimise/improve
the code as needed without having to check in with a bunch of
out-of-tree maintainers about whether or not it is 'OK' to do so.
3) I don't see a need for linking to non-GPLed code.

Trond