From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262745AbTKZNJk (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:09:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262750AbTKZNJj (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:09:39 -0500 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:5638 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262745AbTKZNJh (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:09:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:09:36 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test10-mm1 Message-ID: <20031126130936.A5275@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20031125211518.6f656d73.akpm@osdl.org> <20031126085123.A1952@infradead.org> <20031126044251.3b8309c1.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20031126044251.3b8309c1.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:42:51AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:42:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > The individual patches in the broken-out/ directory are usually > changelogged. This one says: > > It was EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), however IBM's GPFS is not GPL. > > - the GPFS team contributed to the testing and development of > invaldiate_mmap_range(). > > - GPFS was developed under AIX and was ported to Linux, and hence meets > Linus's "some binary modules are OK" exemption. > > - The export makes sense: clustering filesystems need it for shootdowns to > ensure cache coherency. Have you actually looked at the gpfs glue code? something that digs that deep into the VM and VFS actually _must_ be derived work. Or do wed allow people now to pay a developer tax to buy themselves free from GPL restrictions. I as one of the collective copytight holders of the kernel strongly disagree with that, it can't be true that IBM can just ignore copyright law..