From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:42:39 -0700 Message-ID: <448F4D6F.9070601@candelatech.com> References: <1150156562.19929.32.camel@w-sridhar2.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060613140716.6af45bec@localhost.localdomain> <20060613052215.B27858@openss7.org> <448F2A49.5020809@google.com> <20060613154031.A6276@openss7.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed 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 ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:34728 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932231AbWFMXnS (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 19:43:18 -0400 To: Chase Venters In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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! Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com