On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:19:35AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > On 3/13/23 15:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 02:56:59PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > >> On 3/12/23 18:51, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:52:57 +0200 > >>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 11:17:15AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: ... > >>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(iio_gts_total_gain_to_scale, IIO_GTS_HELPER); > >>>> > >>>> I would say _HELPER part is too much, but fine with me. > >>> > >>> Hmm. I think I like the HELPER bit as separates it from being a driver. > >>> Of course I might change my mind after a few sleeps. > >> > >> Ever considered a career as a politician? ;) (No offense intended - and feel > >> free to change your mind on this. I don't expect this to be done tomorrow) > > > > It will be a one liner in the provider if you use DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE > > definition. > > Oh. I didn't know about DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE - or if I did, I had > forgot it. My memory has never been great and seems to be getting worse > all the time... > > I don't know what to think of this define though. I can imagine that > someone who is not familiar with it could be very confused as to why the > symbols are not found even though EXPORT_SYMBOL or EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL are > used. OTOH, I think I once saw an error about symbols being in a > namespace (when trying to use one without the namespace). This should > probably just be a good enough hint for finding out what's going on. > > Luckily, I think all the exports in this case were oneliners even with > the namespace explicitly spelled. Well, I think that for one or two > exports the semicolon did slip to col 81 or 82 - but I am not sure if > fixing this weighs more than the clarity of explicitly showing the > namespace in export. > > Well, I guess I can go with either of these ways - do you have a strong > opinion on using the DEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE? If you asking me, I'm fine with either way. Usually the latter makes sense when we expect APIs in the certain module to: 1) always belong to the single namespace, *and / or* 2) be expanded in the future w/o bothering about their (default) NS, *and not* 3) be a single exported function for the feasible future. Also you made a good point about line length, but with all respect, I prefer 100 than 80 and I do not believe we ever will have function name + NS longer than that. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
