Message ID | 20230228130215.289081-1-nick.alcock@oracle.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | MODULE_LICENSE removals, fifth tranche | expand |
Hi Nick, On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:05 PM Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> wrote: > This series, based on current modules-next, is part of a treewide cleanup > suggested by Luis Chamberlain, to remove the LICENSE_MODULE usage from > files/objects that are not tristate. Due to recent changes to kbuild, these > uses are now problematic. See the commit logs for more details. Does this mean you expect us to queue them for v6.3? Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 01:01:55PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote: > This series, based on current modules-next, is part of a treewide cleanup > suggested by Luis Chamberlain, to remove the LICENSE_MODULE usage from > files/objects that are not tristate. Due to recent changes to kbuild, these > uses are now problematic. See the commit logs for more details. Why isn't kbuild fixed instead? These files can have MODULE_AUTHOR() and other macros when built into the kernel, what is so special about MODULE_LICENSE() that prevents this from working properly? There should not be a need to remove these markings in my opinion, why treat one MODULE_* macro more special than others? thanks, greg k-h
On 28 Feb 2023, Geert Uytterhoeven outgrape: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:05 PM Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> wrote: >> This series, based on current modules-next, is part of a treewide cleanup >> suggested by Luis Chamberlain, to remove the LICENSE_MODULE usage from >> files/objects that are not tristate. Due to recent changes to kbuild, these >> uses are now problematic. See the commit logs for more details. > > Does this mean you expect us to queue them for v6.3? > Thanks! I believe Luis is planning to pull them in around -rc3, hence my freshening the series up now, getting everyone's tags in, etc.