On Thu, 28 May 2015 21:18:44 +0200
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> > As a nit, I would take out "have a preference to".
>
> Fine by me, do you need a new submission on my part of can you amend yourself?
I can tweak it on the way in.
Thanks,
jon
___
On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:56:01 -0700
"Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
> +Some maintainers and developers may however have a preference to
> +require EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() when adding any new APIs or functionality.
As a nit, I would take out "have a preference to".
>From what I can tell, there are
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:00:09PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Great, thanks. This seems to be in alignment with those who have all along
> > said
> > they've used EXPORT_SYMBOL() to mean what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() users no
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Great, thanks. This seems to be in alignment with those who have all along
> said
> they've used EXPORT_SYMBOL() to mean what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() users now use it
> for. Nevertheless -- maintainers should know that some stubborn
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface".
I.E. a statement of intent that this sy
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:56:19PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17:36PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > ... while some of us consider that as pointless posturing and will refuse
> > > to merge such exports regardless.
> >
> > Can you elaborate why, for those maintainers
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:17:36PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > ... while some of us consider that as pointless posturing and will refuse
> > to merge such exports regardless.
>
> Can you elaborate why, for those maintainers not aware of such positions?
*shrug*
Either one states that all
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:07:49PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:56:01AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> >
> > Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> > only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
> >
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:56:01AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
> only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". In practice these days
> though
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:09:23PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:56:01 -0700
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
>
> > +Some maintainers and developers may however have a preference to
> > +require EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() when adding any new APIs or functionality.
>
> As a
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
Current documentation over use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
only acknowledges functions which are "an internal implementation
issue, and not really an interface". In practice these days
though we have some maintainers taking on preferences to require
all new functionalit
11 matches
Mail list logo
