On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:40:37 +0200
Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 09:28:56AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Christian asked [1] for EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES() without the _GPL_
> > part to avoid controversy converting selected existing EXPORT_SYMBOL().
> > Christoph argued [2] that the _FOR_MODULES() export is intended for
> > in-tree modules and thus GPL is implied anyway and can be simply dropped
> > from the export macro name. Peter agreed [3] about the intention for
> > in-tree modules only, although nothing currently enforces it.
> >
> > It seems straightforward to add this enforcement, so patch 1 does that.
> > Patch 2 then drops the _GPL_ from the name and so we're left with
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES() restricted to in-tree modules only.
Bikeshedding somewhat, isn't that a silly name.
All EXPORT_SYMBOL are 'for modules'.
Wouldn't something like EXPORT_SYMBOL_IN_TREE be more descriptive.
David
> >
> > Current -next has some new instances of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES()
> > in drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_rsa.c by commit b20d6576cdb3 ("serial:
> > 8250: export RSA functions"). Hopefully it's resolvable by a merge
> > commit fixup and we don't need to provide a temporary alias.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250623-warmwasser-giftig-ff656fce89ad@brauner/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aFleJN_fE-RbSoFD@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250623142836.GT1613200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Love this. It'd be great to get this in as a bugfix,
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
