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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox