Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro.

Rusty Russell
2007-11-28T02:30:39Z

On Tuesday 27 November 2007 21:50:16 Andi Kleen wrote:
> Goals are:
> - Limit the interfaces available for out of tree modules to reasonably
> stable ones that are already used by a larger set of drivers.

Not the goals. I haven't seen the *problem* yet.

> - Limit size of exported API to make stable ABIs for enterprise
> distributions easier
> [Yes I know that is not a popular topic on l-k, but it's a day-to-day
> problem for these distros and out of tree solutions do not work]

That's a real problem, and I sympathise with the idea of marking symbols as
externally useful (or, practically, mark internal).

But we now need to decide what's "externally useful". The currently line for
exports is simple: someone in-tree needs it. You dislike the suggestion to
extend this to "if more than one in-tree needs it it's open".

Currently your criterion seems to be "does the maintainer hate external
modules?" which I don't think will be what you want...

Cheers,
Rusty.