[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adave7or6q6.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:18:25 -0800
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, 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.
> Agreed. On first glance, I was intrigued but:
>
> 1) Why is everyone so concerned that export symbol space is large?
> - does it cost cpu or running memory?
> - does it cause bugs?
> - or are you just worried about "evil modules"?
>
> 2) These aren't real namespaces
> - all global names still have to be unique
> - still have to handle the "non-modular build" namespace conflicts
> - there isn't a big problem with conflicting symbols today.
Perhaps changing the name from "namespace" to "interface" would help?
Then a module could have something like
MODULE_USE_INTERFACE(foo);
and I think that makes it clearer what the advantage of this is: it
marks symbols as being part of a certain interface, requires modules
that use that interface to declare that use explicitly, and allows
reviewers to say "Hey why is this code using the scsi interface when
it's a webcam driver?"
- R.
-
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