Masashige Kotani wrote:
> > Masashige Kotani wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > > I am a Jyunji's co-worker too.
> > > I am making a new command for module support of lkcd as in the above
> > Hi, Masashige-san. I have no problems including this into the tree,
> > as long as it isn't conflicting with Andreas' work, and it can be
> > packaged nicely together. The conflict issue is just to make sure
> > multiple LKCD developers are working on the same page. I'm all for
> > the right thing going into the code base regardless, I just don't
> > want to see conflicts in the way the work is completed.
> lkcd_ksyms and symtab subcommand has the overlapped function (use the nm
> command), and it becomes unnecessary to use symtab.
That's fine -- again, I don't mind that there are different ways of
doing this, as I suspect at some point some of this methodology is
going to merge regardless.
> I think debugging that will becomes easy, if it uses with lkcd_ksyms
> reproducing the module command and /proc/ksyms reproducing /proc/modules.
> > The other thing I need to know is that you
> > are releasing this code under the GPL. Your copyright is included,
> > which is fine, but I need to know that this code is GPL'd before
> > I can include it into the LKCD source tree.
> There is no probrem to apply GPL to this code.
Okay, then I can put it in. It will be released under the GPL.
> > Also, can I call this 'lkcd_ksyms'? I'd like to use that name instead
> > of lcd_ksyms, for consistency with the package name.
> I agree entirely. Please call it 'lkcd_ksyms'.
> > Otherwise, I can include this into the tree tonight.
> > BTW, I'm almost done with the next revision of the patch (3.2), which
> > has the dump_silence_system()/dump_resume_system(), changes to include
> > gzip support, and a matching lkcdutils-3.2. I'm going to bump up the
> > revision of lkcdutils to match that of the kernel patch. That way we
> > have some more consistency with what is compatible with what.
> > There are some big changes going into LKCD 3.2 to change tunable names,
> > to allow for expandability for future enhancements.
> > Are people reviewing the source tree? If so, I'll check my intermediate
> > changes in for now so people can review them.
> > Thanks!
> > --Matt