On 11/12/19 7:24 PM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > > On 12/11/2019 12.45, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> Hello Marc, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:39:27PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>> On 11/12/19 12:37 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:15:52PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(can_sock_destruct); >>>> >>>> If the users are only expected to be another can module, it might make >>>> sense to use a namespace here?! >>> >>> How? >> >> Use >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS(can_sock_destruct, CAN) >> >> instead of the plain EXPORT_SYMBOL, and near the declaration of >> can_sock_destruct or in the source that makes use of the symbol add: >> >> MODULE_IMPORT_NS(CAN); >> >> See https://lwn.net/Articles/760045/ for some details. > > Looks nice! Good idea! > > But I would tend to introduce the symbol namespaces for this and the > other (existing) symbols via can-next and not within this patch set that > addresses the j1939 fixes. So I should take this series as is? And the CAN namespace is introduced later? Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
