On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 10:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" > > <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > >>> I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers. Not only that, but > >>> then we'll have this: > >> > >> I do > > > > Can you elaborate on that, or are you just going to pull rank on me? > > > >> > >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ppc_proc_freq); > >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ppc_tb_freq); > >>> > >>> That just looks dumb. > >> > >> Right, so send a patch to fix the first one too :-) > > I don't think either of these should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Why > shouldn't a binary module be allowed to know these frequencies? My > view is why preclude anyone from using this how they want. If they > want to live in the gray area so be it. Who am I to say they > shouldn't have that choice.
Well, I'm all for making binary modules life as hard as possible just for the sake of it :-) Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
