* [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
@ 2005-04-15 15:10 Adrian Bunk
2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2005-04-15 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel
I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
---
This patch was already sent on:
- 4 Mar 2005
--- linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c.old 2005-03-04 01:01:30.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c 2005-03-04 01:01:42.000000000 +0100
@@ -371,8 +371,6 @@
return result;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource);
-
/*
* Given an existing resource, change its start and size to match the
* arguments. Returns -EBUSY if it can't fit. Existing children of
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
2005-04-15 15:10 [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource Adrian Bunk
@ 2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-24 8:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2005-04-23 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: linux-kernel
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
>
True, but this looks like something which out-of-tree code could possibly
be using. I'd prefer to see this one get the deprecated_for_modules
twelve-month treatment.
Or we just leave it as-is. It depends whether insert_resource is a
sensible part of the resource management API (I think it is). If so,
then we should just leave it exported, whether or not any in-kernel moduels
happen to be using it at this point in time.
>
> --- linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c.old 2005-03-04 01:01:30.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c 2005-03-04 01:01:42.000000000 +0100
> @@ -371,8 +371,6 @@
> return result;
> }
>
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource);
> -
> /*
> * Given an existing resource, change its start and size to match the
> * arguments. Returns -EBUSY if it can't fit. Existing children of
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2005-04-24 8:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-04-24 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-05-02 1:45 ` [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource Adrian Bunk
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2005-04-24 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
> Or we just leave it as-is. It depends whether insert_resource is a
> sensible part of the resource management API (I think it is). If so,
> then we should just leave it exported, whether or not any in-kernel moduels
> happen to be using it at this point in time.
well it's sensible for platform code to announce resources sure. Drivers
generally only consume resources though and don't introduce them...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-24 8:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2005-04-24 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-04-24 10:14 ` Andrew Morton
2005-05-02 1:45 ` [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource Adrian Bunk
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2005-04-24 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:44:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
> >
>
> True, but this looks like something which out-of-tree code could possibly
> be using. I'd prefer to see this one get the deprecated_for_modules
> twelve-month treatment.
Don't you think twelve month is damn long? Two kernel releases seem
like a better policy - extremly long deprecation periods only encourage
people to never look at mainline kernels but just ad vendor trees.
> Or we just leave it as-is. It depends whether insert_resource is a
> sensible part of the resource management API (I think it is). If so,
> then we should just leave it exported, whether or not any in-kernel moduels
> happen to be using it at this point in time.
It makes sense for plattforms or bus implementations. So for typical drivers
it doesn't make sense at all. It might make sense for bus providers, and in
case a modular one that wants this symbol appears we could re-export it
as _GPL, clearly marking it internal.
Note that you're not really helping driver authors by exporting random
kernel symbols - that way we can never guarantee a semi-stable API as
random internals are exported. Compare that with e.g. the scsi subsystem
where we're trying to make sure to only export sensible primitives that
operate on higher-level object to the driver and make sure they're moving
off old and ill-specified APIs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
2005-04-24 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2005-04-24 10:14 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2005-04-24 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig; +Cc: bunk, linux-kernel
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:44:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
> > >
> >
> > True, but this looks like something which out-of-tree code could possibly
> > be using. I'd prefer to see this one get the deprecated_for_modules
> > twelve-month treatment.
>
> Don't you think twelve month is damn long? Two kernel releases seem
> like a better policy - extremly long deprecation periods only encourage
> people to never look at mainline kernels but just ad vendor trees.
A year ago we were at 2.6.6. It's not that long, really.
> Note that you're not really helping driver authors by exporting random
> kernel symbols
We can mark these things as deprecated-in-modules today, to avoid new usages.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource
2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-24 8:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-04-24 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2005-05-02 1:45 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-05-02 10:54 ` Arjan van de Ven
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2005-05-02 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:44:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
> >
>
> True, but this looks like something which out-of-tree code could possibly
> be using. I'd prefer to see this one get the deprecated_for_modules
> twelve-month treatment.
>...
Patch below.
cu
Adrian
<-- snip -->
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.old 2005-05-01 23:59:05.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt 2005-05-02 00:00:17.000000000 +0200
@@ -57,0 +58,8 @@
+
+---------------------------
+
+What: remove EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource)
+When: April 2006
+Files: kernel/resource.c
+Why: No modular usage in the kernel.
+Who: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/include/linux/ioport.h.old 2005-05-02 00:00:30.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/include/linux/ioport.h 2005-05-02 00:00:56.000000000 +0200
@@ -97 +97 @@
-extern int insert_resource(struct resource *parent, struct resource *new);
+extern __deprecated_for_modules int insert_resource(struct resource *parent, struct resource *new);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource
2005-05-02 1:45 ` [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource Adrian Bunk
@ 2005-05-02 10:54 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2005-05-02 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
> --- linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.old 2005-05-01 23:59:05.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.12-rc3-mm2-full/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt 2005-05-02 00:00:17.000000000 +0200
> @@ -57,0 +58,8 @@
> +
> +---------------------------
> +
> +What: remove EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource)
> +When: April 2006
> +Files: kernel/resource.c
12 months is a really long time for something that's quite unlikely to
be used; how about 3 to 6 months?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource
@ 2005-03-04 0:48 Adrian Bunk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2005-03-04 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I didn't find any possible modular usage in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
--- linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c.old 2005-03-04 01:01:30.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.11-rc5-mm1-full/kernel/resource.c 2005-03-04 01:01:42.000000000 +0100
@@ -371,8 +371,6 @@
return result;
}
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource);
-
/*
* Given an existing resource, change its start and size to match the
* arguments. Returns -EBUSY if it can't fit. Existing children of
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-05-02 10:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-04-15 15:10 [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource Adrian Bunk
2005-04-23 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-24 8:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-04-24 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-04-24 10:14 ` Andrew Morton
2005-05-02 1:45 ` [2.6 patch] __deprecated_for_modules insert_resource Adrian Bunk
2005-05-02 10:54 ` Arjan van de Ven
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-03-04 0:48 [2.6 patch] unexport insert_resource Adrian Bunk
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.