On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:50 AM 'Michal Koutný' via kernel-team <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 10:19:20AM -0700, "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Should I export these now for this series? > > Hehe, _I_ don't know. > Depends on the likelihood this lands in and is built upon. > Ok, I'll leave these unexported for now unless I hear otherwise. > > No, except maybe the gpucg_bucket name which I can add an accessor > > function for. Won't this mean depending on LTO for potential inlining > > of the functions currently implemented in the header? > > Yes. Also depends how much inlining here would be performance relevant. > I suggested this with an OS vendor hat on, i.e. the less such ABI, the > simpler. > > > I'm happy to make this change, but I wonder why some parts of the > > kernel take this approach and others do not. > > I think there is no convention (see also > Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst ;-)). > Alright I'll queue this change up for the next rev. > Regards, > Michal Thanks again! > > -- > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. >
