Re: Is it OK to export symbols 'getname' and 'putname'?

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:55:07PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 17-04-15 20:35:30, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Al,
> > 
> > 
> > I'm trying to clean that part of code you mentioned, and I found I have
> > to export the symbols 'getname' and 'putname' as follow to replace that
> > __getname() caller:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > index a182019..014f51a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/dir.c
> ...
> > +#define ll_getname(filename) getname(filename)
> > +#define ll_putname(name) putname(name)
>   Bonus points for getting rid of these useless defines.

Yeah, make sense.

Thank you for your comments,

Regards,
Boqun

> 
> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > index ffab2e0..7a0948c 100644
> > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > @@ -205,6 +205,7 @@ getname(const char __user * filename)
> >  {
> >  	return getname_flags(filename, 0, NULL);
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(getname);
> >  
> >  struct filename *
> >  getname_kernel(const char * filename)
> > @@ -254,6 +255,7 @@ void putname(struct filename *name)
> >  	} else
> >  		__putname(name);
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(putname);
> >  
> >  static int check_acl(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> >  {
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Is that a good idea to export these symbols, given that lustre may be
> > the only user? 
>   Yes, it is a good idea.
> 
> 								Honza
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> SUSE Labs, CR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]