Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] kernel/sys.c: possible cleanups

Arjan van de Ven
2006-05-01T08:00:28Z

On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 00:49 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > If removing exports requires a process, adding exports requires a
> > > similar process.
> >
> > alternatively we should bite the bullet, and just stick those 900 on the
> > "we'll kill all these in 3 months" list, have a thing to disable them
> > now via a config option (so that people actually notice rather than just
> > having them in the depreciation file) and fix the 5 or 10 or so that
> > actually will be used soon in those 3 months.
> >
>
> I'd instead suggest that we implement a new EXPORT_SYMBOL_UNEXPORT_SCHEDULED

EXPORT_UNUSED_SYMBOL() ? (with comment of date)

(well you didn't apply the patch for that I sent you so I suppose you
hate it ;)

> (?) and use that. Suitable compile-time and modprobe-time warnings would

compiletime warning is hard, because it would require changing
prototype, which is a lot more churn, and I'll bet a lot of exports
don't even have a prototype at all. modprobe time is easy. (middle
ground would be depmod time; that's almost compile time I suppose but a
lot easier, but might need modutils help)

> be needed. Put the unexport date in a comment at the
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_UNEXPORT_SCHEDULED site or even in the modprobe-time warning
> message, if that's convenient:
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_UNEXPORT_SCHEDULED(foo, "Dec 2006");

comment is easy, putting a date in is really sucky since it grows the size of exports even more..
(which means people pay even more export tax than they do today)