From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro. Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: <200711291122.00324.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20071122343.446909000@suse.de> <200711291055.02056.arnd@arndb.de> <200711291100.46598.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@ravnborg.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au To: Andi Kleen Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:49748 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762490AbXK2KW0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:22:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200711291100.46598.ak@suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 29 November 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I think it would be good if you could specify a default namespace > > per module, that could reduce the amount of necessary changes significantly. > > But also give less documentation. It's also not that difficult to mark > the exports once. I've forward ported such patches over a few kernels > and didn't run into significant me Part of your sentence seems to be missing, but I guess I understand your point. How many files did you annotate this way? I can see it as being useful to have the namespace explicit in each symbol, but doing it once per module sounds like the 80% solution for 20% of the work, and the two don't even conflict. In the current kernel, I count 12644 exported symbols in 1646 files, in 540 directories. One problem I can see with annotating every symbol is that it conflicts with other patches that add more exported functions to a file without adding the namespace, or that simply break because of context changes. Arnd <><