On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:49 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Monday 26 November 2007 17:15:44 Roland Dreier wrote:
> > It seems pretty > > clear to me that having a mechanism that requires modules to make > > explicit which (semi-)internal APIs makes reviewing easier > > Perhaps you've got lots of patches were people are using internal APIs they > shouldn't? With my "Enterprise" hat on, I can see where Andi was coming from originally. Just like we do in RHEL, SuSE have a concept of a kernel ABI and we too have a concept of a whitelist of symbols - a subset of kernel ABI that is approved for use by third parties (this is nothing to do with licensing, this is to do with ABI stability we try to ensure). As part of figuring out what should and should not be used by external modules (outside of the core kernel), we've gained a bit of experience, and it would be nice to be able to help others - this is nothing to do with upstream "ABI stability", but just to be of a public service by documenting those functions that are never intended for modules but which necessarily are exported because they have one or two users. > > , makes it > > easier to communicate "please don't use that API" to module authors, > > Well, introduce an EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL(). It's a lot less code. But > you'd > still need to show that people are having trouble knowing what APIs to use. I suggested this exact idea privately at OLS. I still think it's the best compromise, though I like bits of the namespace idea. An EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would indeed be trivial. Jon. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
