Re: 2.6.11 breaks modules gratuitously

[John Kacur <jkacur@rogers.com>]

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 13:49, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> > When you guys go on these "make needlessly global code static" kicks
> > you should maybe consider that even functions that aren't currently
> > used by any other area of the tree might be useful for module writers.
> > 
> > Instead of just checking which functions are currently used by other
> > parts of the kernel perhaps you should think about what makes a
> > logical API and stick to that, even if not all of the functions are
> > currently used.
> 
> I'd second that. Cleanups are good and I do not deny that Adrian Bunk
> has been doing a terrific work. However, unexporting or removing
> functions just because they have no current user in the kernel tree is
> not always a clever thing to do. Keeping things square and logical
> should be taken into consideration, as should the possibility that some
> function might be used outside of the kernel tree. I do *not* mean
> entire interfaces only used outside of the kernel tree, because these
> are highly questionable, but functions that are part of a larger set of
> functions representing an interface, most of which are used inside the
> kernel. In this specific case, dropping exports or removing functions
> make very little sense to me and is sometimes calling for trouble, as
> Greg just underlined. In some cases, the functions are likely to be
> reintroduced/reexported a few months later and we certainly could use
> our time in a more useful way than undoing and redoing things.
> 
> Thanks,

So perhaps we can introduce a new term to linux kernel development,
reexporting a symbol can now be known as debunking?

(sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist)