lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: should new kfifo implementation really be exporting that much?
    On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tilman Schmidt wrote:

    > Am 14.03.2010 15:57 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
    > > as a short followup, kfifo.h strongly implies that a lot of the
    > > above shouldn't be exported:
    > >
    > > ...
    > > /*
    > > * __kfifo_in_... internal functions for put date into the fifo
    > > * do not call it directly, use kfifo_in_rec() instead
    > > */
    > > ...
    > >
    > > anyway, you get the idea. it would seem that a lot of those EXPORTs
    > > should be removed, no?
    >
    > If you look at kfifo_in_rec(), it's a static inline void function
    > defined in kfifo.h and which calls __kfifo_in_generic() or
    > __kfifo_in_rec(). I don't think you'll be able to make that work
    > without exporting those functions.

    huh. i believe you're correct. i'll take a closer look but i still
    get this feeling that there's something ... messy about that API.
    case in point: kfifo_in_rec() is *not* being exported, but a routine
    that it invokes -- __kfifo_in_generic() -- *is* being exported.
    doesn't that just seem a bit backwards?

    anyway, off to the gym to bike and see which duke team shows up for
    georgia tech.

    rday
    --


    ========================================================================
    Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

    Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

    Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
    ========================================================================


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-14 17:53    [W:0.039 / U:32.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site