Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:25:33 -0800 | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] [1/9] Core module symbol namespaces code and intro. |
| |
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:28:14 +1100 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Monday 26 November 2007 07:27:03 Roland Dreier wrote: > > > This patch allows to export symbols only for specific modules by > > > introducing symbol name spaces. A module name space has a white > > > list of modules that are allowed to import symbols for it; all others > > > can't use the symbols. > > > > > > It adds two new macros: > > > > > > MODULE_NAMESPACE_ALLOW(namespace, module); > > > > I definitely like the idea of organizing exported symbols into > > namespaces. However, I feel like it would make more sense to have > > something like > > > > MODULE_NAMESPACE_IMPORT(namespace); > > Except C doesn't have namespaces and this mechanism doesn't create them. So > this is just complete and utter makework; as I said before, noone's going to > confuse all those udp_* functions if they're not in the udp namespace. > > For better or worse, this is not C++. >
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.
So why bother adding complexity. -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> - 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/
| |