On Fri 2019-01-11 06:40:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 06:04:07AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:24:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not
> > > want their code to work on L
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:42:21 +0100
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:01:48PM +0100, Rene Schickbauer wrote:
> > To be frank, your argument, which boils down to "GPL is the only correct
> > open source license", makes me ashamed to have been advocating people
> > switching to
On 2019-01-15 5:42 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:01:48PM +0100, Rene Schickbauer wrote:
>> To be frank, your argument, which boils down to "GPL is the only correct
>> open source license", makes me ashamed to have been advocating people
>> switching to Linux. This is
> Yes, the "GPL condom" attempt doesn't work at all. It's been shot down
> a long time ago in the courts.
SFLC maintains there is no kernel licensing issue[1].
As a side note, even Hellwig's suit against VMware was dismissed (he may
appeal)[2].
Debian and Canonical base their decision to ship
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:01:48PM +0100, Rene Schickbauer wrote:
> To be frank, your argument, which boils down to "GPL is the only correct
> open source license", makes me ashamed to have been advocating people
> switching to Linux. This is exactly the kind of argument that made me switch
> away
Hi Rene,
please switch to FreeBSD instead of advocating to violate the copyright
and licensing rule on my and others work.
Thanks you!
On 10.01.19 19:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Dear Greg!
My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not
want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get
their code to work properly?
I'm not a kernel developer. I'm an application developer and syste
[cc += Ingo]
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 06:40:58AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 06:04:07AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:24:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not
> > >
On 2019-01-10 9:40 p.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Sorry, no, we do not keep symbols exported for no in-kernel users.
>
> greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Can you please address the email that Lukas was responding to?
Thanks.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 06:04:07AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:24:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not
> > want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get
> > their code to w
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:24:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Sun explicitly did not
> want their code to work on Linux, so why would we do extra work to get
> their code to work properly?
ZoL facilitates seamless r/w cross-mounting with macOS,
> Yes, the "GPL condom" attempt doesn't work at all. It's been shot down
> a long time ago in the courts.
SFLC maintains there is no kernel licensing issue[1].
As a side note, even Hellwig's suit against VMware was dismissed (he may
appeal)[2].
Debian and Canonical base their decision to ship
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:07:52PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-01-10 17:32:58 [+], Hutter, Tony wrote:
> > > > But since when did out-of-tree modules use __kernel_fpu_begin?
It's an
> > > > x86-only thing, and shouldn't really be used by anyone, right?
> > >
> > > Z
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 07:07:52PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-01-10 17:32:58 [+], Hutter, Tony wrote:
> > > But since when did out-of-tree modules use __kernel_fpu_begin? It's an
> > > x86-only thing, and shouldn't really be used by anyone, right?
> >
> > ZFS on Linux u
On 2019-01-10 17:32:58 [+], Hutter, Tony wrote:
> > But since when did out-of-tree modules use __kernel_fpu_begin? It's an
> > x86-only thing, and shouldn't really be used by anyone, right?
>
> ZFS on Linux uses it for checksums. Its removal is currently breaking ZFS
> builds against 5.0:
> But since when did out-of-tree modules use __kernel_fpu_begin? It's an
> x86-only thing, and shouldn't really be used by anyone, right?
ZFS on Linux uses it for checksums. Its removal is currently breaking ZFS
builds against 5.0:
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8259#issuecomment-452
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 01:40:14PM -0400, Marc Dionne wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2019-01-09 17:52:35 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > If there are no in-kernel users, the symbols should not be exported
> > > anymore. That's nothin
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 06:09:35PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-01-09 17:52:35 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > If there are no in-kernel users, the symbols should not be exported
> > anymore. That's nothing new, we have always done this.
>
> The thing is that we had
>
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:09 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-09 17:52:35 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > If there are no in-kernel users, the symbols should not be exported
> > anymore. That's nothing new, we have always done this.
>
> The thing is that we had
> EXPORT_
On 2019-01-09 17:52:35 [+0100], Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> If there are no in-kernel users, the symbols should not be exported
> anymore. That's nothing new, we have always done this.
The thing is that we had
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kernel_fpu_begin)
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kernel_fpu_begin)
and now __ke
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:19:52PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-01-07 18:08:26 [-0400], Marc Dionne wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM Linux Kernel Mailing List
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Commit: 12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205
> > > x86/fpu: Don't export
On 2019-01-07 18:08:26 [-0400], Marc Dionne wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM Linux Kernel Mailing List
> wrote:
> >
> > Commit: 12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205
> > x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()
> >
…
> > With EFI gone as the last user of __kernel_fp
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:20 AM Linux Kernel Mailing List
wrote:
>
> Commit: 12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be205
> Parent: 2f2fcc40a961ed04f0e130803fbaa868c2899310
> Refname:refs/heads/master
> Web:
> https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/12209993e98c5fa1855c467f22a24e3d5b8be
23 matches
Mail list logo
