On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:33:31PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:48:00PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:11:23AM -0600, David Lechner wrote: > > > In this case, we specifically split up the headers so that the only time you > > > would ever include this header is if you need to call functions in this > > > namespace (i.e. struct definitions are in linux/spi/offload/types.h which > > > doesn't import the namespace). So this doesn't actually seem like a problem > > > to me. > > Indeed - I can't see any case where a user would need the header without > > needing the namespace. > You are looking from the other end. What I'm telling is that anyone who adds > a header, automatically gets a namespace. What's the point to have namespace > if it won't easily prevent from (ab)using it in the code. I consider putting > MODULE_IMPORT_NS() in the headers a bit weird. Sure, but there's no case where anyone should ever be adding the header without adding the namespace which does rather sound like the sort of thing where you should just move the namespace addition to the header.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
