Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Date: 2008-03-20 22:22:58 GMT (18 weeks, 16 hours and 19 minutes ago)
* Ingo Molnar (mingo <at> elte.hu) wrote: > > * Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers <at> polymtl.ca> wrote: > > > 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, tomorrow it's marker use by such > modules) has only one clear and predictable effect: it turns marker > calls into essential ABIs because when faced with any breakage in an > unfixable module that makes use of a marker in some kernel subsystem > then all the pressure is on those who _can_ fix their code - meaning the > kernel subsystem maintainers that use markers. > > unfixable modules should only be allowed access to easy things they can > access anyway, or to such fundamental things which we wont realistically > change anyway. Markers are neither. > > (i also find it puzzling why you go out on a limb helping a piece of > _irrelevant_ technology that has been the unparalleled source of pain > and anguish to both kernel users and kernel developers.) > > Ingo Please note that this patch has a single purpose : to let proprietary modules define markers to *export* information. The opposite (connect callbacks to markers) is not allowed since the rest of the markers API is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL'd. I would also be strongly against letting proprietary modules access the information provided by the markers. However, I think it's only useful for the end user to let proprietary modules open up a bit, considering that proprierary module writers can use the markers as they want in-house, but would have to leave them disabled on shipped kernels. As far as I am concerned, I want to help the end user, not the technology itself. Unless I have a proof that markers in proprietary modules (information *providers* only) would be a pain to maintain, I won't object against supporting proprietary 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