<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7655.10">
<TITLE>Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: export ppc_tb_freq so that modules can reference it</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Josh Boyer wrote:<BR>
> This is a new symbol being exported, not<BR>
> one that has been exported for years.<BR>
<BR>
Except that Ben says that I should change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL to<BR>
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as well. In a sense, we're in a catch-22. We have three<BR>
choices:<BR>
<BR>
1. We *arbitrarily* change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL to<BR>
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, so that the two symbols are exported the same way<BR>
<BR>
2. We GPL-export only ppc_tb_freq and leave ppc_proc_freq as-is, but then it<BR>
looks dumb.<BR>
<BR>
3. We export ppc_tb_freq the same way we're exporting ppc_proc_freq,<BR>
providing the most options and maintaining consistency.<BR>
<BR>
I just don't see how options #1 or #2 are better than #3, and so far the only<BR>
explanations I've heard are along the lines of "we just like it that way".<BR>
<BR>
Obviously, Linus thinks it's okay to allow some non-GPL modules, otherwise he<BR>
would have long ago changed all EXPORT_SYMBOLs to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. I'm<BR>
just capitalizing on that mindset.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Timur Tabi<BR>
Linux kernel developer<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>