From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chase Venters Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: <200606131906.16683.chase.venters@clientec.com> References: <1150156562.19929.32.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <448F4D6F.9070601@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" , Daniel Phillips , Stephen Hemminger , Sridhar Samudrala , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from relay01.pair.com ([209.68.5.15]:35077 "HELO relay01.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964822AbWFNAGS (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:06:18 -0400 To: Ben Greear In-Reply-To: <448F4D6F.9070601@candelatech.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:42, Ben Greear wrote: > Chase Venters wrote: > > At least some of us feel like stable module APIs should be explicitly > > discouraged, because we don't want to offer comfort for code that > > refuses to live in the tree (since getting said code into the tree is > > often a goal). > > Some of us write modules for specific features that are not wanted in > the mainline kernel, even though they are pure GPL. Our life is hard > enough with out people setting out to deliberately make things more > difficult! Fair enough, but if you are doing out of tree, pure GPL modules, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() isn't a bad thing, is it? Don't mistake me for actually having a big opinion specifically about this socket API's usage of EXPORT_SYMBOL()... just raising some points that I think apply to these decisions in general. I don't really see a compelling reason for EXPORT_SYMBOL() over EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() on the socket APIs though... I'm trying to imagine what kind of legitimate non-GPL modules might use them. > Ben Thanks, Chase