On 11/27/07 7:27 PM, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:Yes, I overstated this. Absolutely in the limit. But there are many bits of code that work quite nicely from release to release because they use services that live in the smooth water in the wake of the Linux head. I think defining that smooth water has merit. I also think that it would be nice to limit the scope of module externs to avoid polluting the global namespace. I'm not sure that this particular patch reaches these goals, but it prompted me to comment. Well, this is an interesting question. The answer is I think both are important. It would be nice (and arguably necessary long term) to limit the scope of externs. This can be accomplished with name spaces "I want bob's implementation of read." I think it also has value to define interfaces that are considered stable (but not inviolate) to allow developers to make better informed decisions when choosing interfaces. Having this info explicit in the code seems logical to me. Yeah, maybe I'm off in the weeds on this one... Tom -
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Mike Travis | [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
| Dave Jones | agp / cpufreq. |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 14/37] dccp: Tidy up setsockopt calls |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
