Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:38:39 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
       Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] Markers Support for Proprierary Modules
Message-ID: <20080320083839.GA3569@infradead.org>
References: <20080320002737.918213455@polymtl.ca> <20080320002835.384758480@polymtl.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080320002835.384758480@polymtl.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 851
Lines: 16

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:27:41PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> There seems to be good arguments for markers to support proprierary modules. So
> I am throwing this one-liner in and let's see how people react. It only makes
> sure that a module that has been "forced" to be loaded won't have its markers
> used. It is important to leave this check to make sure the kernel does not crash
> by expecting the markers part of the struct module by mistake in the case there
> is an incorrect checksum.

I still disagree.  Markers are per defintion a very linux specific API
and thus should stay internal.

--
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/