[Accel-config] Re: [PATCH] accel-config: Replicate driver error codes in idxd.h in library
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang at intel.com>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.accel-config |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/19/2021 5:16 PM, Thomas, Ramesh wrote: > What should we do while this is resolved to fix the compile issue? Should > I create an idxd.h with LGPL license? I'm ok with that. > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 03:14:31PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >> I just noticed that include/uapi/linux/ndctl.h is distributed as LGPL. I >> wonder if it's possible to change that given only we (Intel) has touched >> this file. >> >> On 7/19/2021 2:13 PM, Thomas, Ramesh wrote: >>> Noticed driver idxd.h has GPL license. Library is LGPL and I remember >>> LGPL cannot use GPL code. Even if that is changed in newer drivers I am >>> not sure if there is any issue with older drivers. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 01:00:46PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2021 12:35 PM, Thomas, Ramesh wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:50:09AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >>>>>> On 7/19/2021 10:34 AM, Thomas, Ramesh wrote: >>>>>>> I think copying will have the problem of compiler picking different >>>>>>> ones. Library may use the copied version while the app may get the one >>>>>>> in /usr/include. Do you think defining new constants would be safer? >>>>>> I think instead of pulling the /usr/include version we just depend on >>>>>> the copied version exclusively. Then we will have 1 less dependency and >>>>>> compile correctly always. >>>>> I was also concerned about user apps including the /user/include idxd.h. >>>>> Even in libaccel we would need to make assumptions that the constants >>>>> used will not diverge from the one driver is using. Since the issue is >>>>> only about some constants like the sw cmd_status which is not available >>>>> in older idxd.h, I think it is better to define them separately and >>>>> privately for the library. >>>>> >>>> User ABI is considered constant for Linux and if we are changing it, >>>> there would be ways to provide backward compatibility. I think making >>>> copy of header should be safe. That is why ndctl does that.