Re: 2.6.31 -mm merge plans

[Eric W. Biederman]

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
on proc.

Eric
--
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/