On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote: > > > On 15/08/2025 07.25, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:54:43AM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote: > >> On 11/08/2025 07.18, Christian Brauner wrote:j > >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:28:47 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >>>> Christoph suggested that the explicit _GPL_ can be dropped from the > >>>> module namespace export macro, as it's intended for in-tree modules > >>>> only. It would be possible to restrict it technically, but it was > >>>> pointed out [2] that some cases of using an out-of-tree build of an > >>>> in-tree module with the same name are legitimate. But in that case those > >>>> also have to be GPL anyway so it's unnecessary to spell it out in the > >>>> macro name. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>> > >>> Ok, so last I remember we said that this is going upstream rather sooner > >>> than later before we keep piling on users. If that's still the case I'll > >>> take it via vfs.fixes unless I hear objections. > >> > >> This used to go through Masahiro's kbuild tree. However, since he is not > >> available anymore [1] I think it makes sense that this goes through the modules > >> tree. The only reason we waited until rc1 was released was because of Greg's > >> advise [2]. Let me know if that makes sense to you and if so, I'll merge this > >> ASAP. > > > > At this point it would mean messing up all of vfs.fixes to drop it from > > there. So I'd just leave it in there and send it to Linus. > > Got it. I was waiting for confirmation before taking it into the modules tree, > and I agree that at this point it makes sense to keep it in vfs.fixes. > > > Next time I know where it'll end up. > > Can you clarify what you mean by this? Next time I know that you are responsible for taking such patches. :)
