> On 8 Jun 2018, at 16:23, Simon Marchi wrote: > > On 2018-06-08 10:37, Simon Marchi wrote: >> The code looks good to me, thanks. I am still unsure about the >> licensing side of it, let me ask the FSF people about it, I'll come >> back to you when it's done. I hope it won't take too long! > > Hi Alan, > > After discussion with other maintainers, it was suggested to avoid involving the legal staff if we want to resolve this anytime soon. > > Since ARM already holds the copyright to these header files anyway (they were all written by ARM people), you may be able to submit that code as regular FSF-assigned code, without changing the status of the kernel copy. But nobody here is a lawyer, so nobody wants to say for sure :). > > Maybe it's ok after all if we don't include these headers (at least for now), and require that GDB for native AArch64 is built against the headers of a >= 4.15 kernel? They can always be included later, but it would avoid delaying the inclusion of the feature, since you want to have it before we branch 8.2. > Sorry, I did miss this one (I think I sent my reply to the previous one more or less the same time you sent this). If I commit this, (I think) this is going to cause buildbot to break for the aarch64 builds. (Out of interest - I’ve heard people say they tested on buildbot. Are there some instructions for doing that? I can try it out.) I suspect updating buildbot is also not a quick fix. If all that’s not ok (I suspect not), I’ll have a quick word with the more legal aware people on my side, see if there is any opinion. Alan. &j!z޶׏5b֫rnr