From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro. Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:18:25 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20071122343.446909000@suse.de> <200711261228.15155.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20071126102533.1c774870@freepuppy.rosehill.pdx.hemminger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rusty Russell , Andi Kleen , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@ravnborg.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071126102533.1c774870@freepuppy.rosehill.pdx.hemminger.net> (Stephen Hemminger's message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:25:33 -0800") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Agreed. On first glance, I was intrigued but: > > 1) Why is everyone so concerned that export symbol space is large? > - does it cost cpu or running memory? > - does it cause bugs? > - or are you just worried about "evil modules"? > > 2) These aren't real namespaces > - all global names still have to be unique > - still have to handle the "non-modular build" namespace conflicts > - there isn't a big problem with conflicting symbols today. Perhaps changing the name from "namespace" to "interface" would help? Then a module could have something like MODULE_USE_INTERFACE(foo); and I think that makes it clearer what the advantage of this is: it marks symbols as being part of a certain interface, requires modules that use that interface to declare that use explicitly, and allows reviewers to say "Hey why is this code using the scsi interface when it's a webcam driver?" - R.