From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com ([144.254.224.147]:30432 "EHLO ams-iport-4.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758537Ab2JKLhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:37:13 -0400 From: Hans Verkuil To: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:36:45 +0200 Cc: Rob Clark , Robert Morell , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, Sumit Semwal , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org References: <1349884592-32485-1-git-send-email-rmorell@nvidia.com> <201210110857.15660.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <20121011123407.63b5ecbe@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121011123407.63b5ecbe@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201210111336.45574.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote: > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for > > zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM drivers > > are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL > > and forcing those closed-source drivers to make their own incompatible API, > > thus defeating the whole point of DMABUF, or using EXPORT_SYMBOL and letting > > the closed source vendors worry about the legality. They are already using such > > functions (at least nvidia is), so they clearly accept that risk. > > Then they can accept the risk of ignoring EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and > calling into it anyway can't they. Your argument makes no rational sense > of any kind. Out of curiosity: why do we have both an EXPORT_SYMBOL and an EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL if there is no legal difference? And if there is a difference between the two, then what is it? Regards, Hans