Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] unwind: Export unwind_user symbol to GPL modules

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 07:54:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 04:38:33 -0700
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 06:27:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > This has nothing to do with Mathieu being a friend. He's a long time Linux
> > > kernel contributor and has played a key role in developing a new feature
> > > that will help both perf and ftrace, but without the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(),
> > > LTTng can't use it. It's basically saying "thank you Mathieu for helping us
> > > with this new feature, now go F*** off!"  
> > 
> > You don't have to be as explicit, but otherwise that's exactly how
> > it works.  No one gets a free ride just because they are nice and/or
> > contributed something.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> And yes, I still consider it draconian.
> 
> > 
> > The rest of your mail looks just as confused.
> 
> Let me rephrase it then.
> 
> How would you recommend getting LTTng into the kernel? It's a relatively
> large project that has 75K of lines of code with development that lasted
> around 20 years.

The same exact way any such out-of-tree project gets merged into the
kernel tree.  This isn't unusual, why is anyone confused here?

> To break it up now, into reviewable patches would be a huge undertaking.
> And who is going to review it? I don't have the time, do you?

The maintainers of the subsystems in which the new code interacts with
are the reviewers, as always.  Again, nothing unusual here.

> Have any suggestions for him, or do you just not care? But you are one of
> the gate keepers of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() which affects him.

This is not the issue at all, sorry Just submit it like normal.

I think there's a whole in-kernel document that describes the process :)

thanks,

greg k-h