"Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > It is not. Sys_call_table was exported to allow iBCS/Linux-ABI
>
> I don't know if it matters, but these two calls putpmsg and getpmsg
> are the calls used by iBCS.
AFAIK, iBCS use these syscalls to emulate TLI, and iBCS
only has this emulation working for the IP protocol suite.
LiS is hooking the same syscalls, and is more protocol
independent.
In this way, iBCS and LiS are competing projects, even
if their base objectives are very different (iBCS aims
for user-level binary portability from SysV, while LiS
aims for kernel-level STREAMS code portability from SysV
to extend to Linux).
> No, I don't think anyone wants proprietary syscalls to be registered
> with this facility. If _GPL can allow an LGPL module to use the
> facility without problems, that will be the best way to go.
An LGPL module with proprietary code linked into it will
taint the kernel. LiS is often linked with proprietary
code, since it is under LGPL.
IMHO, A not-GPL-only export from the kernel is needed
here.
That will not make these syscalls proprietary. Even with
proprietary drivers linked into LiS, it is impossible to
deviate from the SysV definition of putpmsg/getpmsg
unless the code of LiS itself is modified.
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 04:29, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > It is not. Sys_call_table was exported to allow iBCS/Linux-ABI
> >
> > I don't know if it matters, but these two calls putpmsg and getpmsg
> > are the calls used by iBCS.
>
> AFAIK, iBCS use these syscalls to emulate TLI, and iBCS
iBCS doesn't exist for 2.4 or 2.5 kernels
it's called linux-abi now and does NOT use these syscalls
Ole,
I don't think that exporting putpmsg and getpmsg as _GPL will
stop proprietary modules from being linked with LiS. LiS exports
its symbols on a different basis. There is no need for a proprietary
module using LiS to access putpmsg or getpmsg or the syscall
registration facility for that matter. Is you concern that LiS
using a _GPL only facility will force GPL on modules linked with LiS
even though LiS is LGPL?
--brian
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Ole Husgaard wrote:
> "Brian F. G. Bidulock" wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > It is not. Sys_call_table was exported to allow iBCS/Linux-ABI
> >
> > I don't know if it matters, but these two calls putpmsg and getpmsg
> > are the calls used by iBCS.
>
> AFAIK, iBCS use these syscalls to emulate TLI, and iBCS
> only has this emulation working for the IP protocol suite.
>
> LiS is hooking the same syscalls, and is more protocol
> independent.
>
> In this way, iBCS and LiS are competing projects, even
> if their base objectives are very different (iBCS aims
> for user-level binary portability from SysV, while LiS
> aims for kernel-level STREAMS code portability from SysV
> to extend to Linux).
>
> > No, I don't think anyone wants proprietary syscalls to be registered
> > with this facility. If _GPL can allow an LGPL module to use the
> > facility without problems, that will be the best way to go.
>
> An LGPL module with proprietary code linked into it will
> taint the kernel. LiS is often linked with proprietary
> code, since it is under LGPL.
>
> IMHO, A not-GPL-only export from the kernel is needed
> here.
>
> That will not make these syscalls proprietary. Even with
> proprietary drivers linked into LiS, it is impossible to
> deviate from the SysV definition of putpmsg/getpmsg
> unless the code of LiS itself is modified.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ole Husgaard.
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ? The reasonable man adapts himself to the ?
[email protected] ? world; the unreasonable one persists in ?
http://www.openss7.org/ ? trying to adapt the world to himself. ?
? Therefore all progress depends on the ?
? unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ?
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 10:56, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Ole,
>
> I don't think that exporting putpmsg and getpmsg as _GPL will
> stop proprietary modules from being linked with LiS. LiS exports
> its symbols on a different basis. There is no need for a proprietary
> module using LiS to access putpmsg or getpmsg or the syscall
> registration facility for that matter. Is you concern that LiS
> using a _GPL only facility will force GPL on modules linked with LiS
> even though LiS is LGPL?
The _GPL is just to help people and guide them. It doesn't alter what is
and is not an offence under copyright law.