Re: [PATCH 2/7] CAN: Add PF_CAN core module

Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-28T20:28:22Z

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:20 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> That's not true with CAN.
>
> With this CAN stuff, any driver you write for it is intimately
> integrated into the design and architecture of the CAN subsystem. Any
> such driver cannot stand on it's own. Look at how these drivers can
> get into the internals.

I'm just concerned about protocols, which have been designed and
implemented long ago outside of the kernel and are going to be wrapped
with glue code to fit into the socket can implementation. That's hard to
judge.

> If this code goes in without the _GPL() exports, that's fine, but it's
> setting incorrect expectations for people who think they can write
> binary-only drivers and link to these symbols.
>
> And it will be the CAN folks who are guilty of setting these
> false premises. Especially after I've explicitly warned about
> it here.

Fair enough.

tglx