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?
