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

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> 
> * Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
[...]
> > > [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.)
> 
> ... which makes it doubly problematic to expose them to binary-only 
> modules in any way, shape or form. Really, once _any_ kernel facility is 
> used by such a module, it's pain for us to change it from that point on. 
> Once markers are a 10 year concept that nobody in their right mind would 
> want to change, sure, we dont _care_ about whether it's export or not, 
> and basic courtesy might say that it's OK to do it. But to proactively 
> export any aspect of a half-done piece of infrastructure is crazy.
> 
> 	Ingo

I agree with you on this : maybe it would be better to wait a bit and
let the core markers in first and learn from that before we open this up
to proprierary modules.

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/