Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] binfmt_elf: FatELF support for kernel modules.

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 10/19/09 21:54, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
> I can understand that concern, but I worry about refusing to take steps 
> that would aid free software developers in case it might help the 
> closed-source people, too.
>   

Any open source driver should be encouraged to be merged with mainline
Linux so there's no need to distribute them separately.  With the
staging/ tree, that's easier than ever.

I don't see much upside in making it "easier" to distribute binary-only
open source drivers separately.  (It wouldn't help that much, in the
end; the modules would still be compiled for some finite set of kernels,
and if the user wants to use something else they're still stuck.)

> Those that will behave badly will do so regardless of file formats, but 
> distros shipping nothing but GPL'd software and in-tree drivers would 
> benefit from this more than another misguided company that probably 
> doesn't care about multiple CPU architectures anyhow.
>   

Well, ideally a fat module would allow modules for multiple kernels to
be bundled together (same and/or different architectures), which is
primarily useful for 3rd-party binary distributions.


    J