On 10 Oct 02 at 11:32, David Grothe wrote:
> Previous patch was "better" but not correct. How about this? (changed
> return 0 to return ret).
Yes, it's ok with me. You can still do
register(NULL, notNULL);
register(notNULL, NULL);
without trigerring any error, but maybe that it can be called feature.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]
Attached is the "final" patch. I eliminated the unregister function. This
is tested on stock 2.4.19 kernel.
Will someone see that it is added to the kernel source?
Thanks,
Dave
a) please read Documentation/CodingStyle
b) please add a prototype in a header
c) please make it EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
At 06:27 PM 10/10/2002 Thursday, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>a) please read Documentation/CodingStyle
Is there a specific problem here? We tried to imitate the kernel coding
style with this patch.
>b) please add a prototype in a header
Can you suggest which header file would be appropriate? I would be glad to
add the prototype there.
>c) please make it EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
LiS is LGPL. Would it work if the exported symbol was GPL only?
As this is something of a replacement for the old exported sys_call_table,
which was exported generally, we thought that a general export was appropriate.
Thanks,
Dave
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 21:07, David Grothe wrote:
> LiS is LGPL. Would it work if the exported symbol was GPL only?
since LiS becomes GPL when you link it into the kernel with insmod,
that's not a problem ;)
Guys, I think we are closing in on it.
I ran the patch through Lindent. I moved the exported symbol to sys.c and
made it GPL only. I tested it on 2.4.19.
If we could agree on a header file location for the prototype, or not to
have a prototype, I could cook up another candidate for "final" in short order.
Thanks for all the suggestions,
Dave