[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150529050009.GA26034@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:00:09 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>, corbet@....net,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jkosina@...e.cz, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
bp@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Great, thanks. This seems to be in alignment with those who have all along said
> they've used EXPORT_SYMBOL() to mean what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() users now use it
> for. Nevertheless -- maintainers should know that some stubborn developers use
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for its technical merit should violators abuse those
> symbols.
FYI, I think the naming here is really unfortunate. If if was named
EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL as just a kernel export for specific uses we'd
be much better off in being able to explain what it actually does.
Even better would e a system were we have specific export groups, e.g.
symbols would be "core" "mm", "vfs", or "legacy_hack_for_drm" and any
consumer would specificly declare which symbol they pull in.
This would have a couple advantages:
- anyone adding an export needs to think hard into which category
it falls, and think again if exporting really makes sense
- it's reasy to review modules to see if they pull in anything
unexpected.
--
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