[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711281234.03381.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:34:02 +1100
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, 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 Tuesday 27 November 2007 21:50:16 Andi Kleen wrote:
> Goals are:
> - Limit the interfaces available for out of tree modules to reasonably
> stable ones that are already used by a larger set of drivers.
Not the goals. I haven't seen the *problem* yet.
> - Limit size of exported API to make stable ABIs for enterprise
> distributions easier
> [Yes I know that is not a popular topic on l-k, but it's a day-to-day
> problem for these distros and out of tree solutions do not work]
That's a real problem, and I sympathise with the idea of marking symbols as
externally useful (or, practically, mark internal).
But we now need to decide what's "externally useful". The currently line for
exports is simple: someone in-tree needs it. You dislike the suggestion to
extend this to "if more than one in-tree needs it it's open".
Currently your criterion seems to be "does the maintainer hate external
modules?" which I don't think will be what you want...
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