From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268091AbUBRVGb (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268092AbUBRVGb (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:31 -0500 Received: from bi01p1.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.142]:47417 "EHLO linux.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268091AbUBRVG1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:06:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:00:21 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andrew Morton , hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range Message-ID: <20040218140021.GB1269@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <20040216190927.GA2969@us.ibm.com> <20040217073522.A25921@infradead.org> <20040217124001.GA1267@us.ibm.com> <20040217161929.7e6b2a61.akpm@osdl.org> <1077108694.4479.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1077108694.4479.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:51:35PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 01:19, Andrew Morton wrote: > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > > > IBM shipped the promised SAN Filesystem some months ago. > > > > Neat, but it's hard to see the relevance of this to your patch. > > > > I don't see any licensing issues with the patch because the filesystem > > which needs it clearly meets Linus's "this is not a derived work" criteria. > > it does? I believe so. > It needed no changes to work on linux? There is a small shim layer required, but the bulk of the code implementing GPFS is common between AIX and Linux. It was on AIX first by quite a few years. > it only uses "core unix" apis ? If they are made available, yes. That is the point of this patch, after all. ;-) > it needs no changes to the core kernel? *buzz* You -can- run GPFS in the 2.4 kernel without core-kernel patches, as long as you don't mind putting up with mmap/page-fault races and with NFS exports from different nodes handing out the same lock to two different NFS clients. ;-) > It doesn't require knowledge of deep and changing internals ? *buzz* That is indeed the idea. > It doesn't need changing for various kernel versions ? It is tested on specific kernel versions. Clearly moving from 2.4 to 2.6 requires some change. > I remember this baby overriding syscalls and the like not too long > ago... ??? > The word "clearly" isn't correct imo. Just because something has a few > lines of code that started on another OS doesn't make it "clearly" not a > derived work, at least not in my eyes. Hmmm... You seem to have a rather expansive definition of "a few lines of code". ;-) Thanx, Paul