Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:

>> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary 
>> modules. So I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people 
>> react. [...]
>
> ugh, this is unbelievably stupid move technically - so a very strong 
> NACK. Allowing marker use in unfixable modules (today it's placing 
> markers into unfixable modules, 

As the thread suggested, this can benefit us more than it benefits
them, because it may let us see more into the blobs.


> tomorrow it's marker use by such modules) has only one clear and
> predictable effect: it turns marker calls into essential ABIs [...]

The marker_probe_*register calls are already EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'd, so
that covers your "tomorrow" case.  NACK that all you like when/if
someone proposes changing that.

> [if the proprietary modules attach to kernel markers ...] then all
> the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the
> kernel subsystem maintainers that use [you mean: define] markers.

(In a way, it would be a nice problem to have.  At this moment, there
are still no markers actually committed within -mm nor -linus.)


- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/