From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759552Ab0CNRCv (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:51 -0400 Received: from posthamster.phnxsoft.com ([195.227.45.4]:2234 "EHLO posthamster.phnxsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759519Ab0CNRCs (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:48 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1347 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:02:48 EDT Message-ID: <4B9D10D1.1060602@phoenixsoftware.de> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:37:37 +0100 From: Tilman Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100228 SUSE/3.0.3-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: should new kfifo implementation really be exporting that much? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.101 () BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 14.03.2010 15:57 schrieb Robert P. J. Day: > as a short followup, kfifo.h strongly implies that a lot of the > above shouldn't be exported: > > ... > /* > * __kfifo_in_... internal functions for put date into the fifo > * do not call it directly, use kfifo_in_rec() instead > */ > ... > > anyway, you get the idea. it would seem that a lot of those EXPORTs > should be removed, no? If you look at kfifo_in_rec(), it's a static inline void function defined in kfifo.h and which calls __kfifo_in_generic() or __kfifo_in_rec(). I don't think you'll be able to make that work without exporting those functions. HTH T.