Re: [PATCH v4 06/12] PCI: Introduce pci_rescan_bus()

[Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>]

* Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:05:48AM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:39:56 -0600 Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_add_new_bus);
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_scan_slot);
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_scan_bridge);
> > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_scan_child_bus);
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_rescan_bus);
> > > 
> > > uhm, is there any rationale for the seemingly-random mixup of export types
> > > in this interface?
> > 
> > History?
> > 
> > I've no clue why we're mixing EXPORT_SYMBOL and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> 
> I do :)
> 
> New PCI core exports were added with _GPL, it's the older ones that were
> left at the "normal" level.
> 
> > git-blame says that the mishmash existed pre-git.
> > 
> > For my new interface, I thought that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL would be
> > most appropriate, but maybe not?
> 
> Yes it is, pci hotplug exports has always been EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), in
> fact I think it was the first in-tree user of this marking.
> 
> > What would you like me to do? Make them all the same?
> 
> New ones should be _GPL() please.
> 
> But please put the export in the proper place, checkpatch.pl will
> complain if you do not.  Which means you didn't run it on your patches
> :)

Andrew already yelled at me privately about checkpatch.

I went over and ran it on all my patches, and that was indeed one
of the complaints.

But when it comes to file consistency vs "letter of the law" I
like to keep things consistent (even if broken) in the file.

I could go back and move all those EXPORT_SYMBOL declarations to
the "proper" place. Is that too much noise though?

Thanks.

/ac