From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750857AbXBNBQR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:16:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751480AbXBNBQR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:16:17 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:41593 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857AbXBNBQR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:16:17 -0500 Message-ID: <45D262DC.2020008@goop.org> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:12 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zachary Amsden CC: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Chris Wright , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [patch 10/21] Xen-paravirt: Name: dont export paravirt_ops structure, do individual functions References: <20070213221729.772002682@goop.org> <20070213221830.238235953@goop.org> <45D260A2.4010200@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <45D260A2.4010200@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Zachary Amsden wrote: > This turned out really hideous looking to me. Can't we split the > struct into GPL'd and non-GPL'd functions instead? We still have the > same granularity, and none of this function call to an indirect > function call nonsense. It's not pretty, but I think having paravirt_ops and paravirt_ops_gpl would be worse. I'd be sympathetic to the idea of splitting paravirt_ops up by function groupings, but splitting it by license seems like a maintenance headache with no real upside. Besides, patching will solve everything (tm). J