From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] kernel/sys.c: possible cleanups
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:13:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060501081335.GS3570@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060501003833.340ced5b.akpm@osdl.org>
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 12:38:33AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>...
> > > > - remove the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL:
> > > > - in_egroup_p
> > > > - remove the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL's:
> > > > - kernel_restart
> > > > - kernel_halt
> > >
> > > which I will not.
> > >
> > > We have a process for the latter. And even if we ignore that process, the
> > > patch ends up sitting in -mm for ages because of the API change, along with
> > > the cleanups, which could be merged up promptly.
> >
> > The problem is that we have a lack of a process at the other end:
> >
> > There is no process to review added exports.
>
> Yes there is - I and many others frequently query them. Sure, sometimes
> stuff slips through. But it's a very very minor problem.
Linus merges dozens of git trees, and we have exactly zero process for
noticing issues like [1]. Sure, you can say "Adrian will complain", but
others can complain equally when I unexport a symbol where I either
missed the in-kernel users or an in-kernel user is just about to be
submitted.
And where is a non-minor problem with unexports?
If it accidentially breaks in-kernel stuff people notice immediately,
and if it breaks external modules there is still the point that we do
not have a stable API for external modules.
And breaking external modules frequently is a _good_ thing since it
gives people them a reason for submitting their code for inclusion into
the kernel. LSM/AppArmor is an example for the benefits of threating
with immediate removal (no matter whether the result will be merging
AppArmor or a more secure implementation of AppArmor, or whatever else).
cu
Adrian
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/18/127
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-01 8:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-01 7:11 [RFC: 2.6 patch] kernel/sys.c: possible cleanups Adrian Bunk
2006-05-01 7:18 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-01 7:35 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-05-01 7:38 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-01 8:13 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-05-01 7:39 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-05-01 7:49 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-01 8:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-05-01 8:20 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-01 8:59 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-05-01 9:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-05-01 9:07 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-01 9:24 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-05-16 17:43 ` [2.6 patch] kernel/sys.c: cleanups Adrian Bunk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-04-20 17:47 [RFC: 2.6 patch] kernel/sys.c: possible cleanups Adrian Bunk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060501081335.GS3570@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.