On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 16:45 +0100, Andreas Noever wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 15:14 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> >> 2. Are any additional prefixes appropriate so that further name space > >> >> conflicts can be better avoided? > >> > > >> > To avoid possible external naming conflicts, add tb_ prefix to > >> > various ring_<foo> structs and functions. > >> > >> Do you imagine that any XEN software developers need also to reconsider > >> this implementation detail? > >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c?id=fc14f9c1272f62c3e8d01300f52467c0d9af50f9#n268 > > > > I think static functions can be named whatever > > the developer chooses. > Do symbols which are not exported (no EXPORT_SYMBOL_(GPL)) cause > conflicts? If the symbol is not static, yes. eg: the static uses of "debug" as a control variable vs the non-static uses of <prefix>debug when shared among multiple objects in a single driver. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
