* Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:05:48AM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:39:56 -0600 Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_add_new_bus); > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_scan_slot); > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_scan_bridge); > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_scan_child_bus); > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_rescan_bus); > > > > > > uhm, is there any rationale for the seemingly-random mixup of export types > > > in this interface? > > > > History? > > > > I've no clue why we're mixing EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. > > I do :) > > New PCI core exports were added with _GPL, it's the older ones that were > left at the "normal" level. > > > git-blame says that the mishmash existed pre-git. > > > > For my new interface, I thought that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL would be > > most appropriate, but maybe not? > > Yes it is, pci hotplug exports has always been EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), in > fact I think it was the first in-tree user of this marking. > > > What would you like me to do? Make them all the same? > > New ones should be _GPL() please. > > But please put the export in the proper place, checkpatch.pl will > complain if you do not. Which means you didn't run it on your patches > :) Andrew already yelled at me privately about checkpatch. I went over and ran it on all my patches, and that was indeed one of the complaints. But when it comes to file consistency vs "letter of the law" I like to keep things consistent (even if broken) in the file. I could go back and move all those EXPORT_SYMBOL declarations to the "proper" place. Is that too much noise though? Thanks. /ac -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
