From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:54324 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750754Ab2JKCuI (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:50:08 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id uo13so1246046obb.19 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:50:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121010221119.6a623417@redhat.com> References: <1349884592-32485-1-git-send-email-rmorell@nvidia.com> <20121010191702.404edace@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121010221119.6a623417@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:50:07 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Use EXPORT_SYMBOL From: Dave Airlie To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Robert Morell , Alan Cox , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, rob@ti.com, Sumit Semwal , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote: >> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700 >> > Robert Morell wrote: >> > >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation >> >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is >> >> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it >> >> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead. >> > >> > NAK. This needs at the very least the approval of all rights holders for >> > the files concerned and all code exposed by this change. >> >> I think he has that. Maybe he just needs to list them. > > My understanding it that he doesn't, as the dmabuf interface exposes not only > the code written by this driver's author, but other parts of the Kernel. > > Even if someone consider just the dmabuf driver, I participated and actively > contributed, together with other open source developers, during the 3 days > discussions that happened at Linaro's forum where most of dmabuf design was > decided, and participated, reviewed, gave suggestions approved the code, etc > via email. So, even not writing the dmabuf stuff myself, I consider myself as > one of the intelectual authors of the solution. > > Also, as dmabuf will also expose media interfaces, my understaning is > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing > (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has > copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, including the driver's > core, from where all Linux Kernel drivers are derivative work, including this one. > > As Alan well said, many other core Linux Kernel authors very likely share > this point of view. > > So, developers implicitly or explicitly copied in this thread that might be > considering the usage of dmabuf on proprietary drivers should consider > this email as a formal notification of my viewpoint: e. g. that I consider > any attempt of using DMABUF or media core/drivers together with proprietary > Kernelspace code as a possible GPL infringement. Though that does beg the question why you care about this patch :-) Dave.