Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2023 16:28:35 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers | From | Matti Vaittinen <> |
| |
On 3/18/23 19:17, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 06:19:35 +0000 > "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> wrote: > >> On 3/13/23 15:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:56:59PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >>>> On 3/12/23 18:51, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:52:57 +0200 >>>>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 11:17:15AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale, IIO_GTS_HELPER); >>>>>> >>>>>> I would say _HELPER part is too much, but fine with me. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm. I think I like the HELPER bit as separates it from being a driver. >>>>> Of course I might change my mind after a few sleeps. >>>> >>>> Ever considered a career as a politician? ;) (No offense intended - and feel >>>> free to change your mind on this. I don't expect this to be done tomorrow) >>> >>> It will be a one liner in the provider if you use DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE >>> definition. >> >> Oh. I didn't know about DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE - or if I did, I had >> forgot it. My memory has never been great and seems to be getting worse >> all the time... > >> >> I don't know what to think of this define though. I can imagine that >> someone who is not familiar with it could be very confused as to why the >> symbols are not found even though EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL are >> used. OTOH, I think I once saw an error about symbols being in a >> namespace (when trying to use one without the namespace). This should >> probably just be a good enough hint for finding out what's going on. >> >> Luckily, I think all the exports in this case were oneliners even with >> the namespace explicitly spelled. Well, I think that for one or two >> exports the semicolon did slip to col 81 or 82 - but I am not sure if >> fixing this weighs more than the clarity of explicitly showing the >> namespace in export. >> >> Well, I guess I can go with either of these ways - do you have a strong >> opinion on using the DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE? >> > > If it's in the C file, then I can cope with doing it this way. > Don't do it in the compiler options though. That got ripped out of CXL > because it was considered a bad idea to hide the namespace away like that. > > Personally I prefer the namespace of the symbols explicit in each export > as they are easy to find that way.
I share the same view on this. I did use the DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE for v4 - but I'll drop that for v5 and go back with the explicit name-space usage.
Yours, -- Matti
-- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
| |