Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:26:52PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> On Monday 26 November 2007 16:58:08 Roland Dreier wrote:
>> >  > > I agree that we shouldn't make things too hard for out-of-tree
>> >  > > modules, but I disagree with your first statement: there clearly is a
>> >  > > large class of symbols that are used by multiple modules but which are
>> >  > > not generically useful -- they are only useful by a certain small
>> >  > > class of modules.
>> >  >
>> >  > If it is so clear, you should be able to easily provide examples?
>> >
>> > Sure -- Andi's example of symbols required only by TCP congestion
>> > modules;
>> 
>> Exactly.  Why exactly should someone not write a new TCP congestion module?
> 
> Agreed the congestion modules are a corner case. I even mentioned that in the
> patch. I would be happy to drop that one if that is the consensus.
> It was more done as a example anyways. That is why I made it an separate
> namespace from "tcp"
> 
> But for many other TCP symbols it makes a lot of sense: all the functions
> only used by tcp_ipv6.c. If someone wants to write support for a "IPv7" or
> similar they really should do it in tree. So I think the "tcp" and  "inet"
> namespaces make a lot of sense.

OK, short of making IPv4 a module (which would be a worthy task :)
do you have an example where a symbol is used by more than one module
but needs to be put into a namespace?

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/