Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation

• Next message: Martijn van Oosterhout: "Re: IDE drives and unmaskirq"
• Previous message: Roderich Schupp: "Re: ISOFS problems"
• In reply to: Keith Owens: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Keith Owens wrote:
> Not to mention this case:
>
> static int do_something(void) {...}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(do_something);
>
> Perfectly legal because of the way that the kernel handles exported
> symbols.

I would prefer that such a case be perfect illegal..

It may be legal because of the way the kernel handles exported symbols,
but it violates all traditional assumptions made about declaring a
symbol static -- fighting namespace pollution, making possible compiler
and linker optimizations, etc.

It violates the Principle of Least Surprise

        Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik              | Nothing cures insomnia like the
Building 1024            | realization that it's time to get up.
MandrakeSoft, Inc.       |        -- random fortune
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Martijn van Oosterhout: "Re: IDE drives and unmaskirq"
• Previous message: Roderich Schupp: "Re: ISOFS problems"
• In reply to: Keith Owens: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST