From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932186AbVHHSm3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:42:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932187AbVHHSm3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:42:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:7837 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932186AbVHHSm2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:42:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Arnd Bergmann cc: Olof Johansson , Stelian Pop , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Export handle_mm_fault to modules. In-Reply-To: <200508081044.10875.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: References: <1123278912.8224.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050805232530.GA8791@austin.ibm.com> <200508081044.10875.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > We will need the same export on ppc64 for managing SPEs on the > Cell processor. My current patch removes the export on ppc > and adds a global (*_GPL) one. Should I rather have another > architecture specific export in ppc64? I don't see any reason not to make it global if there are two architectures that need it. Especially as long as it's marked GPL-only so that people don't start misusing it. Linus