From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755195Ab2L1Wzx (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:55:53 -0500 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:48539 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755163Ab2L1Wzu (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:55:50 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Larry Finger Cc: viresh kumar , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:01:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3226192.H2BxHSuKio@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.4 (Linux/3.8.0-rc1+; KDE/4.9.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <50DE1A74.4040607@lwfinger.net> References: <50DE1A74.4040607@lwfinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote: > Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to > separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file > (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module > named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create > a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file. > As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the > resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module > license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are > exported GPL only, and are therefore not available. > > Signed-off-by: Larry Finger > --- > > This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I > have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new > configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges > drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is > desired. Yes, please. > The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version. I wonder if that's avoidable? The intention is not to create an additional module, clearly. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.