On 05/22, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:46 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On 05/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On 5/22/19 9:15 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
> > > > exposed API functions. While M
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:46 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 05/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On 5/22/19 9:15 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
> > > exposed API functions. While Makefile does check for this mismatch, if
> >
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:21 AM Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> On 5/22/19 9:15 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
> > exposed API functions. While Makefile does check for this mismatch, if
> > it actually occurs it's not trivial to deter
On 05/22, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 5/22/19 9:15 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
> > exposed API functions. While Makefile does check for this mismatch, if
> > it actually occurs it's not trivial to determine which functions are
On 5/22/19 9:15 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
> exposed API functions. While Makefile does check for this mismatch, if
> it actually occurs it's not trivial to determine which functions are
> accidentally exposed. This patch dumps out
It's easy to have a mismatch of "intended to be public" vs really
exposed API functions. While Makefile does check for this mismatch, if
it actually occurs it's not trivial to determine which functions are
accidentally exposed. This patch dumps out a diff showing what's not
supposed to be exposed f
