Hi,
Should an object which explicitly defines EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS be listed in
export-objs? If not, then I just found some candidates...
Regards,
Thunder
--
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Should an object which explicitly defines EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS be listed in
> export-objs? If not, then I just found some candidates...
In 2.5, there shouldn't be any source which has an "EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS"
line, if so just delete it.
Generally (2.4 and 2.5), a file should be listed in export-objs iff the
source contains some "EXPORT_SYMBOL(...)" statement.
--Kai
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 06:44:43PM -0500, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
>
> > Should an object which explicitly defines EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS be listed in
> > export-objs? If not, then I just found some candidates...
>
> In 2.5, there shouldn't be any source which has an "EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS"
> line, if so just delete it.
Unless a driver author is sharing the same source between 2.4/2.5
Adding a (harmless) EXPORT_NO_SYMBOLS to 2.5 source would be preferable
to wrapping it in a kernel version ifdef.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs