From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 22:00:09 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Al Viro , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jkosina@suse.cz, bhelgaas@google.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, bp@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: extend use case for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() Message-ID: <20150529050009.GA26034@infradead.org> References: <1432839361-10308-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20150528200749.GD7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150528211736.GV23057@wotan.suse.de> <20150528215618.GE7232@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150528231044.GY23057@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20150528231044.GY23057@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:10:44AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Great, thanks. This seems to be in alignment with those who have all along said > they've used EXPORT_SYMBOL() to mean what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() users now use it > for. Nevertheless -- maintainers should know that some stubborn developers use > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() for its technical merit should violators abuse those > symbols. FYI, I think the naming here is really unfortunate. If if was named EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL as just a kernel export for specific uses we'd be much better off in being able to explain what it actually does. Even better would e a system were we have specific export groups, e.g. symbols would be "core" "mm", "vfs", or "legacy_hack_for_drm" and any consumer would specificly declare which symbol they pull in. This would have a couple advantages: - anyone adding an export needs to think hard into which category it falls, and think again if exporting really makes sense - it's reasy to review modules to see if they pull in anything unexpected.