Re: [PATCH v8 01/17] spi: add basic support for SPI offloading

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 06:53:17PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 07:45:30PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 
> > There was a similar discussion some time ago about the lpss pwm driver
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pwm/Z09YJGifvpENYNPy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/).
> > The arguments that you didn't accept back then already are similar to
> > the ones that were brought forward here.
> > The TL;DR; is: Adding MODULE_IMPORT_NS() to a header makes it easier for
> > code to use the exported symbols. Yes, that includes abusers of the
> > code.
> 
> > But if you mostly care about the regular users of an API/ABI, making
> > things easy for those is the thing that matters. Agreed, if you think
> > that module namespaces are primarily a line of defence against abusers,
> > adding the import to the header weakens that defence (a bit). However a
> > typical header includes function prototypes and macros. Those also make
> > it easier for abusers. With your argumentation we better don't create
> > headers at all?
> 
> > There are other benefits of module namespaces like reducing the set of
> > globally available symbols which speeds up module loading or the
> > ability to see in the module meta data that a namespace is used.
> 
> FWIW I fully endorse what Uwe is saying here, forcing every user of the
> API to separately import the symbols seems more likely to create
> busywork than to avoid problems.

I see. Another problem that comes to my mind just now is the module.h to be
included by every header that wants to use MODULE_*() macro. Maybe someone
wants to split mod_namespace.h to decrease an added chaos?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko