lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/filemap: add static for function __add_to_page_cache_locked
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:12:43 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > FWIW, I intend to do some consolidation/renaming in this area. I
> > > > > trust that will not be a problem?
> > > >
> > > > If it does not break anything, it will be not a problem ;-)
> > > >
> > > > It's possible that __add_to_page_cache_locked() can be a global symbol
> > > > with add_to_page_cache_lru() + add_to_page_cache_locked() being just
> > > > static/inline wrappers around it.
> > >
> > > So what happens to BTF if we change this area entirely? Your IDs
> > > sound like some kind of ABI to me, which is extremely scary.
> >
> > Is BTF becoming the new tracepoint? That is, random additions of things like:
> >
> > BTF_ID(func,__add_to_page_cache_locked)
> >
> > Like was done in commit 1e6c62a882155 ("bpf: Introduce sleepable BPF
> > programs") without any notification to the maintainers of the
> > __add_to_page_cache_locked code, will suddenly become an API?
>
> huh? what api/abi you're talking about?

If the function __add_to_page_cache_locked were to be removed due to
the code being rewritten, would it break any user space? If not, then
there's nothing to worry about. ;-)

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-10 03:33    [W:0.086 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site