Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules

Ingo Molnar
2008-03-20T19:13:08Z

* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:

> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary
> modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people
> react. [...]

ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong
NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing
markers into unfixable modules, tomorrow it's marker use by such
modules) has only one clear and predictable effect: it turns marker
calls into essential ABIs because when faced with any breakage in an
unfixable module that makes use of a marker in some kernel subsystem
then all the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the
kernel subsystem maintainers that use markers.

unfixable modules should only be allowed access to easy things they can
access anyway, or to such fundamental things which we wont realistically
change anyway. Markers are neither.

(i also find it puzzling why you go out on a limb helping a piece of
_irrelevant_ technology that has been the unparalleled source of pain
and anguish to both kernel users and kernel developers.)

Ingo