Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:26:52PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: >> On Monday 26 November 2007 16:58:08 Roland Dreier wrote: >> > > > I agree that we shouldn't make things too hard for out-of-tree >> > > > modules, but I disagree with your first statement: there clearly is a >> > > > large class of symbols that are used by multiple modules but which are >> > > > not generically useful -- they are only useful by a certain small >> > > > class of modules. >> > > >> > > If it is so clear, you should be able to easily provide examples? >> > >> > Sure -- Andi's example of symbols required only by TCP congestion >> > modules; >> >> Exactly. Why exactly should someone not write a new TCP congestion module? > > Agreed the congestion modules are a corner case. I even mentioned that in the > patch. I would be happy to drop that one if that is the consensus. > It was more done as a example anyways. That is why I made it an separate > namespace from "tcp" > > But for many other TCP symbols it makes a lot of sense: all the functions > only used by tcp_ipv6.c. If someone wants to write support for a "IPv7" or > similar they really should do it in tree. So I think the "tcp" and "inet" > namespaces make a lot of sense.
OK, short of making IPv4 a module (which would be a worthy task :) do you have an example where a symbol is used by more than one module but needs to be put into a namespace? Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
