On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IMO I don't think we should bend over backwards to accommodate > out-of-tree modules - modifying the module loader to recognize even > more special sections to accommodate these OOT modules would be where > we'd draw the line I think. I agree with you, I really don't like making the module loader more complex (which is why I didn't opt to create separate sections in the first place), and in the end this change will in some ways benefit out-of-tree drivers too, even though it will be a bit painful now. > I think going forward I would prefer to have export namespaces to be a > normal and regular part of kernel API (as in, we shouldn't require a > new option for it), and that the warnings for 1-2 cycles are courteous > enough - but anyone with stronger opinions about this should speak up. That aligns with how I think about this; if we want this to be a standard thing in the kernel, we should at some point enforce it, because it's pretty easy to ignore the warning. The good thing is that it's not a big on/off switch, but subsystem maintainers can just introduce namespaces when it makes sense. Thanks, Martijn > > Thanks, > > Jessica
