From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:23:17 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/22] mm: export alloc_pages_vma Message-ID: <20190625072317.GC30350@lst.de> References: <20190613094326.24093-1-hch@lst.de> <20190613094326.24093-6-hch@lst.de> <20190620191733.GH12083@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Michal Hocko , Christoph Hellwig , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , Jason Gunthorpe , Ben Skeggs , Linux MM , nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, Maling list - DRI developers , linux-nvdimm , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > I asked for this simply because it was not exported historically. In > general I want to establish explicit export-type criteria so the > community can spend less time debating when to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > [1]. > > The thought in this instance is that it is not historically exported > to modules and it is safer from a maintenance perspective to start > with GPL-only for new symbols in case we don't want to maintain that > interface long-term for out-of-tree modules. > > Yes, we always reserve the right to remove / change interfaces > regardless of the export type, but history has shown that external > pressure to keep an interface stable (contrary to > Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst) tends to be less for > GPL-only exports. Fully agreed. In the end the decision is with the MM maintainers, though, although I'd prefer to keep it as in this series.