Re: 2.6.31 -mm merge plans
From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Sat Jun 13 2009 - 16:53:44 EST
Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Al Viro wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:15:05AM +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>> Hi, Al.
>>> Just as what I said in the description of that patch, one only has extern
>>> functions that are _only_ used in another as function pointers.
>> Er... So what? Amount of functions made static is not, per se, a
>> useful metrics of anything.
> Not only about static, but also because they are used via function pointers.
> Logically, it is better for these functions used via pointers to be kept in
> the same file with the struct which holds these function pointers.
I am going to agree with Al here. array.c has a well defined function
and purpose. base.c is on it's way to becoming a dumping ground. The
only reason the functions in array.c are used directly in base.c is
that we don't have a way to dynamically register struct pid_entry's.
Given the number of ifdefs in base.c it looks like it could really benefit
from splitting up. I made it about half way there last time I was working
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/