[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711231125.12832.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:25:11 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.
On Thursday 22 November 2007 22:05:45 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 02:56:22PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > This is an interesting idea, thanks for the code! My only question
> > is whether we can get most of this benefit by dropping the indirection of
> > namespaces and have something like "EXPORT_SYMBOL_TO(sym, modname)"? It
> > doesn't work so well for exporting to a group of modules, but that seems
> > a reasonable line to draw anyway.
>
> I'd say exporting to a group of modules is the main use case. E.g. in
> scsi there would be symbols exported to transport class modules only
> or lots of the vfs_ symbols would be exported only to stackable filesystems
> or nfsd.
That's my point. If there's a whole class of modules which can use a symbol,
why are we ruling out external modules? If that's what you want, why not
have a list of permitted modules compiled into the kernel and allow no
others?
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
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