Re: [PATCH 1/3] lib: Export interval_tree

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] lib: Export interval_tree
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:56:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140318095612.GM18530@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANN689GuFPOujE=1KTXpgTnyDbChX9WDnfBLk+jYK_h4d=VjYQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 06:08:57AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:31 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 12:21 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(interval_tree_insert);
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(interval_tree_remove);
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(interval_tree_iter_first);
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(interval_tree_iter_next);
> >
> > I'd prefer to see EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for this.
> 
> I'm fine with it either way. I think it would help if you stated the
> reason for your preference though ?

Nobody objects?

How about

v3: Prefer EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL for new library routines

as the reason in the changelog for amending the patch?
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre