Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Sep 2022 11:55:47 +0200 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] pwm: lpss: Move exported symbols to PWM_LPSS namespace |
| |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:43:47PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 11:59:45AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:56:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Avoid unnecessary pollution of the global symbol namespace by > > > moving library functions in to a specific namespace and import > > > that into the drivers that make use of the functions. > > > > > > For more info: https://lwn.net/Articles/760045/ > > > > > > Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c | 1 + > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-platform.c | 1 + > > > drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss.c | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c > > > index 75b778e839b3..9f2c666b95ec 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-lpss-pci.c > > > @@ -92,3 +92,4 @@ module_pci_driver(pwm_lpss_driver_pci); > > > > > > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PWM PCI driver for Intel LPSS"); > > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > > > +MODULE_IMPORT_NS(PWM_LPSS); > > > > Each user of the lpss.h header needs that, right? Then the > > MODULE_IMPORT_NS statement can go into the header, too. > > With the same answer as for v1: any user that might include the header for > the sake of data types will get the NS inclusion even if they don't need > that (yes, I don't think it's practical, but slightly better to make sure
I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. For some headers you cannot assume that a file including the header also needs the namespace macro, but for pwm-lpss.h that should be a safe assumption.
> that if one uses an API, one adds necessary NS inclusions; also note that > in case of stale header inclusion this again might bring unnecessary NS, > while the header should be removed -- with that being said, I think we > might need some kind of extended includecheck to see if the APIs and data > structures are actually used when a certain header is included).
+1 for a check about unused headers.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |