On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:08AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 09:12 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:24:14PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > > > Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > On Monday 16 April 2007 20:50, Larry Finger wrote: > > > > > >> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ void free_ieee80211(struct net_device *d > > > >> > > > >> static int debug = 0; > > > >> u32 ieee80211_debug_level = 0; > > > >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ieee80211_debug_level); > > > > > > > > We don't use the _GPL suffix in mac80211. > > > > > > Upon inspection, neither does most of ieee80211. It is now changed. > > > > You are strongly encouraged to use the _GPL version for new symbol > > exports, especially those which are fundamentally internal to > > in-kernel subsystems and/or have no reasonable usage by drivers. > > FWIW, this symbol would seem to fulfill both of those criteria. > > > > If you do not object, I would prefer the _GPL version of the patch. > > What's the rationale for mac80211 _not_ using _GPL exports? I thought > most new exports were pretty much required to be _GPL (otherwise > somebody would NAK it) unless it was really, really necessary that they > weren't.
An argument against _GPL exports for mac80211 might be leaving the exports alone as a token of gratitude or respect towards Devicescape for having seeded the development of mac80211 with a big chunk of code. While I do thank Devicescape for their support, I'm not sure that this argument would be truly compelling. A more presuasive argument in favor of this pragmatism is that it would be counter-productive to discourage driver availability. At this point regulatory issues are still enough of a spectre that some vendors will want the option of offering non-GPL drivers. Such drivers would clearly not be redistributable, but there are arguments that allow for such drivers (i.e. "the user installed the driver -- not us", etc like Nvidia video drivers). Of course, no one likes enabling this kind of "bad behaviour". Probably the best reason in favor of leaving them as-is is that they were written that way by their original author(s). Should I ask for opinionated discussion on the matter? :-) John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
