On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:37:43PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:57:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > > Sourced from here:
> > > http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
> >
> > No,
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:57:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > Sourced from here:
> > http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
>
> No, that is not the same topic or thread.
Formally you are correct but from my
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:57:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
Sourced from here:
http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
No, that is not the same topic or thread.
Formally you are correct but from my POV this
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:37:43PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:57:40PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
Sourced from here:
http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
No, that is not
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> Sourced from here:
> http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
No, that is not the same topic or thread.
> That was the way it was as of 2.6.10-mm1 and it stayed that way through
> 2.6.12. When did that
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 22:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
[snip]
> Then take it up with them. Users of those symbols have had many months
> advance notice that this was going to happen.
>
> > Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
On 2005-07-05T07:09:47, "Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This problem will continue. Eventually there will be no general
> exported symbols. The apparent idea is to prevent the use of the
> kernel in proprietary systems.
... with proprietary kernel extensions. There's a
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It dawned on me only now that a "new driver model" introduced
in patches from GKH export symbols like that:
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_destroy);
and so on. The problem is that corresponding old symbols, which
are
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It dawned on me only now that a new driver model introduced
in patches from GKH export symbols like that:
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_create);
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(class_destroy);
and so on. The problem is that corresponding old symbols, which
are still
On 2005-07-05T07:09:47, Richard B. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This problem will continue. Eventually there will be no general
exported symbols. The apparent idea is to prevent the use of the
kernel in proprietary systems.
... with proprietary kernel extensions. There's a difference.
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 22:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
[snip]
Then take it up with them. Users of those symbols have had many months
advance notice that this was going to happen.
Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
Sourced from here:
http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html
No, that is not the same topic or thread.
That was the way it was as of 2.6.10-mm1 and it stayed that way through
2.6.12. When did that decision
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:44:41PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>
> > Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL deliberate and if yes then
> > what considerations dictated it, other then the patch author wrote
> > it that way, and what
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:44:41PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL deliberate and if yes then
what considerations dictated it, other then the patch author wrote
it that way, and what drivers
14 matches
Mail list logo
