From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932338AbWFMVke (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:40:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932335AbWFMVke (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:40:34 -0400 Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224]:41648 "EHLO gw.openss7.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932329AbWFMVkd (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:40:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:40:31 -0600 From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Sridhar Samudrala , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API Message-ID: <20060613154031.A6276@openss7.org> Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Phillips , Stephen Hemminger , Sridhar Samudrala , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1150156562.19929.32.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060613140716.6af45bec@localhost.localdomain> <20060613052215.B27858@openss7.org> <448F2A49.5020809@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <448F2A49.5020809@google.com>; from phillips@google.com on Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 02:12:41PM -0700 Organization: http://www.openss7.org/ Dsn-Notification-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel, On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > This has the makings of a nice stable internal kernel api. Why do we want > to provide this nice stable internal api to proprietary modules? Why not? Not all non-GPL modules are proprietary. Do we lose something by making a nice stable api available to non-derived modules?