Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932890AbWLNSwe (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:52:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932894AbWLNSwe (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:52:34 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:47602 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932890AbWLNSwd (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:52:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:51:57 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Wedgwood cc: Eric Sandeen , Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Martin Bligh , "Michael K. Edwards" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19] In-Reply-To: <20061214183956.GA13692@tuatara.stupidest.org> Message-ID: References: <20061214003246.GA12162@suse.de> <22299.1166057009@lwn.net> <20061214005532.GA12790@suse.de> <458171C1.3070400@garzik.org> <20061214170841.GA11196@tuatara.stupidest.org> <20061214173827.GC3452@infradead.org> <20061214175253.GB12498@tuatara.stupidest.org> <458194B8.1090309@sandeen.net> <20061214183956.GA13692@tuatara.stupidest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2027 Lines: 46 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing? Well, I'm not sure the _INTERNAL name is all that much better than the _GPL one. In many ways, the _GPL one describes the _effects_ better, and also points out the reason _why_ something is marked differently. Sure, it's marked becasue it's internal, but why is does that have to be pointed out at all? Why not use the same EXPORT_SYMBOL? The answer to that is the "GPL" part, ie the expectation that internal symbols are so internal that they have license effects. And if you were an external vendor doing binary only modules, would you react to "internal"? It wouldn't have the same "oh, _that_ is what it is all about" thing, would it? So I do agree that we have probably done a bad job of explaining why that _GPL thing makes sense, and what it means on a deeper level (the license thing is a very superficial thing, but its worth naming just because the superficial thing is also the biggest _impact_ - even if it may not be the underlying deeper _reason_ for it). So which makes more sense from a naming standpoint: the superficial impact that is what _matters_ for people, or the more subtle issue that causes it to have that impact? I think that question is what it boils down to, and at least personally, while I see both things as being worthwhile, I think the superficial thing is the one that needs pointing out, because it's the one that may change your behaviour (while the deeper _meaning_ is more of just an explanation). But I don't personally care that deeply. I mostly care about the fact that changing the name now would just be inconvenient and unnecessary churn, and that's probably my biggest reason to not want to do it ;) Linus - 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/