From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:23:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:23:52 -0400 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:14737 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:23:51 -0400 Subject: Re: feature request - why not make netif_rx() a pointer? From: "David S. Miller" To: Slavcho Nikolov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <00b201c27a0e$3f82c220$800a140a@SLNW2K> References: <00b201c27a0e$3f82c220$800a140a@SLNW2K> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 22 Oct 2002 15:40:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1035326451.4817.15.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 14:01, Slavcho Nikolov wrote: > Non GPL modules that want to attach themselves between all L2 drivers and > upper layers would not have to incur a performance loss if netif_rx() is > made a What you are suggesting can only result in illegal binary-only modules. If you override netif_rx(), you are by definition implementing a derived work of the kernel reimplementing core functionality, thus your binary only driver is not abiding by the GPL and you are on very shaky legal ground. It isn't exported for a reason, there is legitimate use of it from modules.