[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1vek9sdk9.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:28:38 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>,
"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPL only modules
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> writes:
> On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
>>
>>A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
>>nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and
>>disruptive (though we could support both during a transition and
>>migrate them over time).
>
> I'd prefer to do it at once. But that's not my decision so you anyway do what
> you want.
>
> That said, I would like to keep EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, because EXPORT and INTERNAL
> is somehow contrary. Just a wording issue.
I would suggest that we make the prefix MODULE and not EXPORT. It
more accurately conveys what we are trying to say, and it doesn't
have the conflicting problem with INTERNAL.
I don't know if it is actually worth doing a great rename for such
a simple clarification in language. But it is worth considering
because it would more strongly convey that we don't expect these
symbols to be used by everything.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists