[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200711291122.00324.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:21:58 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sam@...nborg.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.
On Thursday 29 November 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I think it would be good if you could specify a default namespace
> > per module, that could reduce the amount of necessary changes significantly.
>
> But also give less documentation. It's also not that difficult to mark
> the exports once. I've forward ported such patches over a few kernels
> and didn't run into significant me
Part of your sentence seems to be missing, but I guess I understand your
point. How many files did you annotate this way? I can see it as being
useful to have the namespace explicit in each symbol, but doing it once
per module sounds like the 80% solution for 20% of the work, and the
two don't even conflict. In the current kernel, I count 12644 exported
symbols in 1646 files, in 540 directories.
One problem I can see with annotating every symbol is that it conflicts
with other patches that add more exported functions to a file without
adding the namespace, or that simply break because of context changes.
Arnd <><
-
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