From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][XFRM][1/5] extension to XFRM for dynamic endpoint update (MIGRATE) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:51:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20070201113017.E2BA.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <20070202203550.E2F3.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Francis Dupont , Masahide Nakamura , usagi-core@linux-ipv6.org To: Shinta Sugimoto Return-path: Received: from mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.10]:52349 "EHLO mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933386AbXBBMvS (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:51:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070202203550.E2F3.SHINTA@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Shinta Sugimoto wrote: > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(xfrm_state_clone); > > > > Why not EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL ? > > (for all of your exports). > > Actually I don't have specific preference on either EXPORT_SYMBOL or > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. It seemed to me that other functions defined in > files under net/xfrm/ are using EXPORT_SYMBOL, so I followed that. Hmm, you're right, most of them are not _GPL. > Do you think EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is more appropriate in this case? Well, I would have thought that users of xfrm were generally derivative of the kernel, but it doesn't make much sense to have only a couple of symbols exported as GPL, so probably keep it the way you already have it. - James -- James Morris