From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758615Ab0CNO7T (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:59:19 -0400 Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]:41894 "EHLO astoria.ccjclearline.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756779Ab0CNO7Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:59:16 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:57:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: should new kfifo implementation really be exporting that much? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > just curious about how much is being exported from kfifo.c: > > $ grep EXPORT_SYMBOL kernel/kfifo.c > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_init); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_alloc); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_free); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_skip); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_in_n); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_in); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_in_generic); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_out_n); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_out); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_out_peek); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_out_generic); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_from_user_n); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_from_user); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_from_user_generic); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_to_user_n); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(kfifo_to_user); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_to_user_generic); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_peek_generic); > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kfifo_skip_generic); > $ > > there's a lot there that looks like it should be static, no? or is > all of that *meant* to be part of the public kfifo API? 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 */ ... /* * __kfifo_out_... internal functions for get date from the fifo * do not call it directly, use kfifo_out_rec() instead */ ... /* * __kfifo_from_user_... internal functions for transfer from user space into * the fifo. do not call it directly, use kfifo_from_user_rec() instead */ ... /* * __kfifo_to_user_... internal functions for transfer fifo data into user space * do not call it directly, use kfifo_to_user_rec() instead */ ... /* * __kfifo_peek_... internal functions for peek into the next fifo record * do not call it directly, use kfifo_peek_rec() instead */ ... /* * __kfifo_skip_... internal functions for skip the next fifo record * do not call it directly, use kfifo_skip_rec() instead */ ... anyway, you get the idea. it would seem that a lot of those EXPORTs should be removed, no? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================