Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] in-kernel sockets API

[Brice Goglin]

Chase Venters wrote:
> At least some of us feel like stable module APIs should be explicitly
> discouraged, because we don't want to offer comfort for code that
> refuses to live in the tree (since getting said code into the tree is
> often a goal).
>
> I'm curious now too - can you name some non-GPL non-proprietary
> modules we should be concerned about? I'd think most of the possible
> examples (not sure what they are) would be better off dual-licensed
> (one license being GPL) and in-kernel.

What about GPL modules that don't want to get merged ? I don't know any
such module that could use this API. But at least there are some webcam
drivers that don't seem to want to be merged (I don't know why).

I agree with making life hard for proprietary modules. I agree that
maintaining a stable API is hard. But I don't see the actual point of
discouraging modules to stay out of tree.

Brice

-
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/