From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:21:58 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@ravnborg.org,
       rusty@rustcorp.com.au
References: <20071122343.446909000@suse.de> <200711291055.02056.arnd@arndb.de> <200711291100.46598.ak@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200711291100.46598.ak@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200711291122.00324.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1253
Lines: 25

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/