Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:11:26 -0800 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Matt Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r344487 - in head/sys: conf gnu/gcov Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_NetD%2BbGqtEYEBj0PKEH-G7VuOaTyFH_wdqZHJG5B7FCg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20190225175809.GB47081@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <201902232114.x1NLE0cH085345@repo.freebsd.org> <20190225175809.GB47081@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We had a brief discussion of this commit within a subset of core. This > addition of GPLv2 code is fine as the code is easily removal to a module > (per kmoore@) should the day come that we're read to evict all GPL code. I don't execute the ctors until coverage is enabled because I have to manually find the symbols. The linker doesn't actually generate a ctor section for functions in text.startup in spite of what Juniper's linker commit would lead one to believe - presumably they have a private linker script in addition to a private gcov port. Thus, it really could just work fine as a module. Nonetheless, everything to be profiled needs to be compiled with instrumentation, so separating it out makes very little sense to me. Although, I suppose ctfconvert + dtrace module is somewhat analogous. > The modest increase in activation energy for that task seems worth it > for the short-term gains of reduced integration cost (this code will > greatly improve our ZFS-on-Linux test coverage.) > > Rod rightly points out that we haven't accepted SPDX tags alone as > license statements. The standard GPL v2.0 boiler plate should be added > to this file along side the tag. I've copied the full copyright attribution that is in the corresponding files on Linux. Is there some reason why FreeBSD requires the files to be inflated with the full license text where the original lacks it? > > An additional issue is that the a warning tag was not added to > sys/conf/files. A warning along the lines of: > > warning "kernel contains GPLv2 licensed GCOV" > > needs to be added. Yup. > > This commit needed more through review. How would this be achieved:? I had several people on the review and no one had substantive feedback. > > We intend to update our license policy to require core sign off for > new GPL code to ensure we're not adding new, tightly integrated > dependencies, to document that we're doing so knowingly, and > to make sure steps aren't missed. The current document is at: > https://www.freebsd.org/internal/software-license.html -M
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_NetD%2BbGqtEYEBj0PKEH-G7VuOaTyFH_wdqZHJG5B7FCg>