> > Perhaps you've got lots of patches were people are using internal APIs they > > shouldn't? > > > > Maybe the issue is "who can tell" since what is external and what is > internal is not explicitly defined?
Exactly. Or rather it is not defined on the module level. We got "static" of course, but I think we should have a similar mechanism on a module level. > Explicitly documenting what comprises the kernel API (external, > supported) It would not be fully supported either -- can still change etc. -- but there is a reasonable expectation that those external APIs will change less often than internal interfaces. > - forcing developers to identify their exports as part of the > implementation or as part of the kernel API That is EXPORT_SYMBOL already. The trouble is just that it covers too much. My patchkit is trying to limit it again for a specific use case -- exporting an "internal" interface to another module. Or rather a set of modules. Standard example is TCP: TCP exports nearly everything and the single user is the TCP code in ipv6.ko. Instead those symbols should be limited to be only accessable to ipv6.ko. The reason I went with the more generic namespace mechanism instead of EXPORT_SYMBOL_TO() is that ipv6 is ever split up it would still work. Also using namespaces doesn't have any more overhead than EXPORT_SYMBOL_TO() and the complexity is about the same (not very much anyways -- just look at the patches) > - making it easier for reviewers to identify when developers are adding > to the kernel API and thereby focusing the appropriate level of review > to the new function That is another reason. -ANdi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
