10 ms·

From the release notes, it seems like a normal point release. I'm not seeing anything particularly noteworthy but this has hit the front page for some reason. W

by unmole 8y ago

From the release notes, it seems like a normal point release. I'm not seeing anything particularly noteworthy but this has hit the front page for some reason. What am I missing?

dchest 8y ago
Previous title had "...with Linux 5.0 compatibility". The significance of this is that 5.0 changed some interfaces used by ZFS to require GPL license, which ZoL can't call, which generated some discussion https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115134221.GB30742@kroah.com/#t https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115134221.GB30742@kroah.co...
- josteink 8y ago
  Wouldn’t it be possible to create an intermediate GPL licensed kernel-module which simply re-exported the relevant exports so that other kernel-modules could use the exports provided by this module instead? It could have a neat name too, like “gplbridge” or whatever (all associations with License-trolls only partially intended). That way they wouldn’t have remove optimized code for Linux 5+ users. Dirty, utterly pointless, but it would get the job done, right?
  - belorn 8y ago
    Imagine standing in court explaining to a non-technical judge and jury how this "bridge" transforms the copyrighted work into two fully separated works rather than a single derivative work. Do think it would work? Personally I think one has a better time arguing that kernel modules simply interface with the kernel rather than creating a derivative work, thus making any module independent from the license of the kernel. The case law around "interfacing" is conflicting, but at least a few cases has gone in favor of the accused.
kawsper 8y ago
The original title mentioned that ZFS now have support for Linux Kernel version 5, which is something that have been discussed before since the kernel maintainers don't like the hooks that zfsonlinux uses, it was discussed on HN but I can't find it, the discussion sprung up because of this message: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com...
- cesarb 8y ago
  The previous discussion was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19018185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19018185
cesarb 8y ago
There was a recent controversy in which the Linux kernel removed some functions which were being used by the ZFS module, but their replacement are "GPL-only" functions which cannot be used by the ZFS module. This release has a workaround for that, so it can be compiled for Linux 5.0. (IIRC, the original title of this submission had " with Linux 5.0 support" at the end, indicating why this release is newsworthy, but I'm not seeing it anymore.)
eddyg 8y ago
More context: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2 > 5.0 removes the ability from non-GPL modules to use the FPU or SIMD instructions
- josteink 8y ago
  That’s a pretty good reason to stay on 4.x IMO. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to not ruin their own packages. Also... > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Greg seems like a really pragmatic, nice and agreeable chap. Bet he’s a big hit at parties.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Conan_Kudo 8y ago
    > Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to not ruin their own packages. If they want to earn the ire of the Linux kernel developers, sure. But they won't do that, especially if they employ kernel developers. That's a scummy thing to do.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      It is complete bull to claim that loading and saving the FPU state makes a piece of code inherently derivative of GPL code such that it must itself be GPL. Calling that bluff may draw ire but it is not scummy.
PedroBatista 8y ago
That's how I like my file systems updates, anything not particularly noteworthy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by unmole 8y ago

From the release notes, it seems like a normal point release. I'm not seeing anything particularly noteworthy but this has hit the front page for some reason. What am I missing?

dchest 8y ago

Previous title had "...with Linux 5.0 compatibility". The significance of this is that 5.0 changed some interfaces used by ZFS to require GPL license, which ZoL can't call, which generated some discussion https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115134221.GB30742@kroah.com/#t https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115134221.GB30742@kroah.co...

josteink 8y ago
Wouldn’t it be possible to create an intermediate GPL licensed kernel-module which simply re-exported the relevant exports so that other kernel-modules could use the exports provided by this module instead? It could have a neat name too, like “gplbridge” or whatever (all associations with License-trolls only partially intended). That way they wouldn’t have remove optimized code for Linux 5+ users. Dirty, utterly pointless, but it would get the job done, right?
- belorn 8y ago
  Imagine standing in court explaining to a non-technical judge and jury how this "bridge" transforms the copyrighted work into two fully separated works rather than a single derivative work. Do think it would work? Personally I think one has a better time arguing that kernel modules simply interface with the kernel rather than creating a derivative work, thus making any module independent from the license of the kernel. The case law around "interfacing" is conflicting, but at least a few cases has gone in favor of the accused.

kawsper 8y ago

The original title mentioned that ZFS now have support for Linux Kernel version 5, which is something that have been discussed before since the kernel maintainers don't like the hooks that zfsonlinux uses, it was discussed on HN but I can't find it, the discussion sprung up because of this message: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com...

cesarb 8y ago
The previous discussion was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19018185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19018185

cesarb 8y ago

There was a recent controversy in which the Linux kernel removed some functions which were being used by the ZFS module, but their replacement are "GPL-only" functions which cannot be used by the ZFS module. This release has a workaround for that, so it can be compiled for Linux 5.0. (IIRC, the original title of this submission had " with Linux 5.0 support" at the end, indicating why this release is newsworthy, but I'm not seeing it anymore.)

eddyg 8y ago

More context: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2 > 5.0 removes the ability from non-GPL modules to use the FPU or SIMD instructions

josteink 8y ago
That’s a pretty good reason to stay on 4.x IMO. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to not ruin their own packages. Also... > My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant. Greg seems like a really pragmatic, nice and agreeable chap. Bet he’s a big hit at parties.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Conan_Kudo 8y ago
  > Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to not ruin their own packages. If they want to earn the ire of the Linux kernel developers, sure. But they won't do that, especially if they employ kernel developers. That's a scummy thing to do.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    It is complete bull to claim that loading and saving the FPU state makes a piece of code inherently derivative of GPL code such that it must itself be GPL. Calling that bluff may draw ire but it is not scummy.

PedroBatista 8y ago

That's how I like my file systems updates, anything not particularly noteworthy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]