Rob Clark rob at ti.com
Wed Oct 10 14:02:06 PDT 2012

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> Robert Morell <rmorell at nvidia.com> wrote:
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> issue, and not really an interface".  The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
>> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead.
> NAK. This needs at the very least the approval of all rights holders for
> the files concerned and all code exposed by this change.

Well, for my contributions to dmabuf, I don't object.. and I think
because we are planning to use dma-buf in userspace for dri3 /
dri-next, I think that basically makes it a userspace facing kernel
infrastructure which would be required for open and proprietary
drivers alike.  So I don't see much alternative to making this


> Also I'd note if you are trying to do this for the purpose of combining
> it with proprietary code then you are still in my view as a (and the view
> of many other) rights holder to the kernel likely to be in breach
> of the GPL requirements for a derivative work. You may consider that
> formal notification of my viewpoint. Your corporate legal team can
> explain to you why the fact you are now aware of my view is important to
> them.
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

More information about the dri-devel mailing list