From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267233AbUBSMcm (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:32:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267231AbUBSMcm (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:32:42 -0500 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:30483 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267229AbUBSMck (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:32:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:32:37 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , paulmck@us.ibm.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range Message-ID: <20040219123237.B22406@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , paulmck@us.ibm.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@osdl.org References: <20040217124001.GA1267@us.ibm.com> <20040217161929.7e6b2a61.akpm@osdl.org> <1077108694.4479.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040218140021.GB1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218211035.A13866@infradead.org> <20040218150607.GE1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218222138.A14585@infradead.org> <20040218145132.460214b5.akpm@osdl.org> <20040218230055.A14889@infradead.org> <20040218153234.3956af3a.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: <20040218153234.3956af3a.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:32:34PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:32:34PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Yes. We've traditionally not exported symbols unless we had an intree user, > > and especially not if it's for a module that's not GPL licensed. > > That's certainly a good rule of thumb and we (and I) have used it before. > > What is the reasoning behind it? The reason is that someone who wants to distribute a binary only module has to show it's module is not a derived work, and someone who needs new core in the kernel and new exports pretty much shows his work is deeply integrated with the kernel.