From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:11:32 +0100 From: David Weinehall Subject: Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range Message-ID: <20040219091132.GE17140@khan.acc.umu.se> References: <20040216190927.GA2969@us.ibm.com> <20040217073522.A25921@infradead.org> <20040217124001.GA1267@us.ibm.com> <20040217161929.7e6b2a61.akpm@osdl.org> <1077108694.4479.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040218140021.GB1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218211035.A13866@infradead.org> <20040218150607.GE1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218222138.A14585@infradead.org> <20040218145132.460214b5.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040218145132.460214b5.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , paulmck@us.ibm.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > I don't understand why IBM is pushing this dubious change right now, > > It isn't a dubious change, on technical grounds. It is reasonable for a > distributed filesystem to want to be able to shoot down pte's which map > sections of pagecache. Just as it is reasonable for the filesystem to be > able to shoot down the pagecache itself. > > We've exported much lower-level stuff than this, because some in-kernel > module happened to use it. Probably not always the right choice, though... I highly suspect we far to much of our intestines are easily available. [snip] > We need to give Paul a reasoned and logically consistent answer to his > request. For that we need to establish some sort of framework against > which to make a decision and then make the decision. > > One approach is a fait-accomplis from the top-level maintainer. Here, > we're trying to do it in a different way. > > I have proposed two criteria upon which this should be judged: > > a) Does the export make technical sense? Do filesystems have > legitimate need for access to this symbol? > > (really, a) is sufficient grounds, but for real-world reasons:) > > b) Does the IBM filsystem meet the kernel's licensing requirements? > > > It appears that the answers are a): yes and b) probably. a.) Definitely b.) Perhaps > Please, feel free to add additional criteria. We could also ask "do we > want to withhold this symbols to encourage IBM to GPL the filesystem" or > "do we simply refuse to export any symbol which is not used by any GPL > software" (if so, why?). Over to you. Well, I wasn't altogether joking when I suggested IBM should GPL gpfs. A couple of questions: * Is gpfs a commercial product in the sense that it's something IBM earns revenue from? * Does gpfs contain third party "Intellectual Property" (no, I'm not particularly fond of using that expression, but I digress) If the answer is NO to both of these questions, why _not_ GPL the code? If the answer is NO to only the second question, is the revenue from gpfs big enough to warrant keeping it proprietary? > But at the end of the day, if we decide to not export this symbol, we owe > Paul a good, solid reason, yes? Yup. Silence isn't always golden, sometimes it's outright shitty. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org