From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759710AbZFMUxk (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:53:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757248AbZFMUxd (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:53:33 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:42492 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753302AbZFMUxc (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:53:32 -0400 To: Amerigo Wang Cc: Al Viro , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan References: <20090610115140.09c9f4cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090610190841.GT8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090610121633.d678fc8b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A305A99.70701@redhat.com> <20090611031005.GU8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <4A309557.8040508@redhat.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:53:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A309557.8040508@redhat.com> (Amerigo Wang's message of "Thu\, 11 Jun 2009 13\:25\:43 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: amwang@redhat.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Amerigo Wang X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: 2.6.31 -mm merge plans X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Amerigo Wang writes: > Al Viro wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:15:05AM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote: >> >>> Hi, Al. >>> >>> Just as what I said in the description of that patch, one only has extern >>> functions that are _only_ used in another as function pointers. >>> >> >> Er... So what? Amount of functions made static is not, per se, a >> useful metrics of anything. >> > Not only about static, but also because they are used via function pointers. > > Logically, it is better for these functions used via pointers to be kept in > the same file with the struct which holds these function pointers. I am going to agree with Al here. array.c has a well defined function and purpose. base.c is on it's way to becoming a dumping ground. The only reason the functions in array.c are used directly in base.c is that we don't have a way to dynamically register struct pid_entry's. Given the number of ifdefs in base.c it looks like it could really benefit from splitting up. I made it about half way there last time I was working on proc. Eric