From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750940AbWHGC52 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:57:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750941AbWHGC52 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:57:28 -0400 Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:46518 "EHLO palinux.external.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbWHGC51 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:57:27 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 20:57:23 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Greg KH Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: dev_printk() is now GPL-only Message-ID: <20060807025723.GK4379@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Does dev_driver_string() really need to be GPL-only? Up to this point, proprietary modules have been entitled to call dev_printk(), but now: #define dev_printk(level, dev, format, arg...) \ printk(level "%s %s: " format , dev_driver_string(dev) , (dev)->bus_id , ## arg) with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_driver_string); means that they're not allowed to. On a related note, one might wonder if return dev->driver ? dev->driver->name : (dev->bus ? dev->bus->name : ""); really qualifies for the full weight of copyright enforcement, and query whether using it makes your driver a derived work. Particularly since all one is doing is asking the kernel for a nice printk prefix and know nothing about the innards of the device model.