Re: [RFC PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

Hi. On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 4:14 AM Denis Efremov wrote: > > Hi. > > > Could you drop the solved ones from the list? > > Yes, of course. Do you want me to remove all symbols fixed with patches > or only those are in-tree now? > > Should it be like this: > 1. "torture_onoff_cleanup" [kernel/tort

Re: [RFC PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

Hi. Could you drop the solved ones from the list? Yes, of course. Do you want me to remove all symbols fixed with patches or only those are in-tree now? Should it be like this: 1. "torture_onoff_cleanup" [kernel/torture] "torture_shuffle_cleanup" [kernel/torture] Patch: https://lkm

Re: [RFC PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

Hi. Thanks, this patch is very nice. On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:28 AM Denis Efremov wrote: > > This patch adds a check to warn about static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions > during the modpost. In most of the cases, a static symbol marked for > exporting is an odd combination that should be fixed eith

Re: [RFC PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

Hi Denis, On 2019/07/14, Denis Efremov wrote: > This patch adds a check to warn about static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions > during the modpost. In most of the cases, a static symbol marked for > exporting is an odd combination that should be fixed either by deleting > the exporting mark or by removing

[RFC PATCH] modpost: check for static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions

This patch adds a check to warn about static EXPORT_SYMBOL* functions during the modpost. In most of the cases, a static symbol marked for exporting is an odd combination that should be fixed either by deleting the exporting mark or by removing the static attribute and adding the appropriate declar