Re: [PATCH] Fix problem with cpufreq_pndemand or cpufreq_conservative

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, December 28, 2012 04:17:24 PM Larry Finger wrote:
> Since commit 2aacdff entitled "cpufreq: Move common part from governors to 
> separate file", whenever the drivers that depend on this new file 
> (cpufreq_ondemand or cpufreq_conservative) are built as modules, a new module 
> named cpufreq_governor is created. It seems that kmake is smart enough to create 
> a separate module whenever more than one module includes the same object file. 
> As drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c contains no MODULE directives, the 
> resulting module has no license specified, which results in logging of a "module 
> license 'unspecified' taints kernel". In addition, a number of globals are 
> exported GPL only, and are therefore not available.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> This particular patch is the simplest possible; however, it hides the intent. I 
> have prepared the longer version that makes the reason clearer by adding a new 
> configuration variable that is dependent on the other two, and rearranges 
> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile. That version could be submitted if that is what is 
> desired.

Yes, please.

> The changes to cpufreq_governor.c are the same as in this version.

I wonder if that's avoidable?  The intention is not to create an additional
module, clearly.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/