From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M3XJr-0005Mj-F8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2009 11:21:31 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M3XJm-0005I0-Ga
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2009 11:21:31 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56484 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M3XJm-0005Hx-AJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2009 11:21:26 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34805)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1M3XJl-0005AI-Rd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2009 11:21:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4A0841F7.7000201@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:19:19 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4][RFC] Add module infrastructure to
	QEMU
References: <1242052009-27339-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<200905111548.48216.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200905111548.48216.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Paul Brook wrote:
> On Monday 11 May 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> This is the current state of a patch set to introduce a module
>> infrastructure to QEMU.
>>     
>
> I don't think numeric priorities are a good idea. If we have dependencies then 
> we should be dealing with them properly, not hacking round the problem.
>
> Also, there's no reason to have destructors. The init function can register 
> these at runtime.
>   

Agree to both.

> There's also the issue that shared libraries imply it's OK for third parties 
> to ship binary plugins.
>   

Can't we add wording to LICENSE to address this?  I'd really like to 
allow GPL plugins.  Linux and now gcc allow this.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function