Re: should new kfifo implementation really be exporting that much?

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tilman Schmidt wrote:

> 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.

  huh.  i believe you're correct.  i'll take a closer look but i still
get this feeling that there's something ... messy about that API.
case in point:  kfifo_in_rec() is *not* being exported, but a routine
that it invokes -- __kfifo_in_generic() -- *is* being exported.
doesn't that just seem a bit backwards?

  anyway, off to the gym to bike and see which duke team shows up for
georgia tech.

rday
--


========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================