Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 00/19] Make ACPI builder available to components other than hvmloader

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 15.09.16 at 18:40, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/15/2016 12:05 PM, Jan Beulich wrote
> 
>>> Maybe even without changes to mk_dsdt.c
>> But isn't that the critical part? 
> 
> Not necessarily since we'd use --gpl option only for
> dsdt_anycpu_qemu_xen, dsdt_anycpu and dsdt_15cpu and these files are not
> used by the non-GPL caller, which is libxl (it only wants dsdt_pvh).
> 
> Of course, this is what we have currently.

Right - and with the goal to guard against future changes I think
we'd better not omit those parts.

>> And - what functionality do we lose
>> without that code? There's no point in generating something that's
>> of no practical use.
> 
> We don't lose any functionality (again, currently). In fact, this
> indirectly prevents us from generating unnecessary files listed above.

Agreed - I got the sense of the check in mk_dsdt.c the wrong way
round.

>> And then there's the question of whether excluding things from the
>> build, but having them present in the sources actually helps.
> 
> The main reason for this whole relicensing debacle is to prevent non-GPL
> binaries from linking against GPL objects, and this patch allows us to
> do that. Yes, there will be be two non-LGPL files (dsdt.asl amd
> mk_dsdt.c, which I will revert back to GPL) in an otherwise LGPL
> directory but that's an in-convenience and not a license violation.

Well, if linking is all this is about, then it's fine of course. I'm just
not a license expert, so we'd need this acked by someone who is
more familiar with the differences and implications.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel