Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:40:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:40:51 -0500 Received: from hq.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.197]:62422 "EHLO hq.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:40:50 -0500 From: Cort Dougan Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:44:05 -0700 To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Alan Cox , Xavier Bestel , Mark Mielke , Rik van Riel , David McIlwraith , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules Message-ID: <20021120124405.C17249@duath.fsmlabs.com> References: <20021120123145.B17249@duath.fsmlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from andre@linux-ide.org on Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:40:47AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 800 Lines: 20 } Well since there is a fork for everything else, how about a } business-linux-2.{4,5} fork? } } As a place to make it even harder for the extremist to whine and cry over } the usages of binary only modules. } } Comments? Maybe it's best to not add yet another fork. I just managed to dis-entangle myself from maintaining some trees and wouldn't wish that on anyone else. A single config option that adds -fno-inline wouldn't be fork-worthy. As for extremists complaining... I think you'd just give them a target and a forum rather than quiet them. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/