Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:11:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, eivind@yes.no, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: static -ification Message-ID: <199802122311.QAA04342@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19980212143844.44164@follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Feb 12, 98 02:38:44 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The problem is that we have subsystems that share symbols internally, but > shouldn't expose those symbols to the rest of the world. I'd like a > hierarchical model where we the kernel is the top node of a tree, and each > node in the tree have a defined exported interface, and all symbols not in > that interface will be removed. Each node will be implemented as an object > file, but might be constructed by re-linking subnodes through ld -r and a > pass through symorder -c to zap non-wanted symbols. > > This has two good effects: > (1) Limiting exposure of symbols as much as possible, so incestous > relationships don't develop so easily. > (2) Minimizing re-link time, as only the parts of the kernel that really has > changed will be re-linked. > > OTOH, I think this might be too large a change for people to swallow. It wants the kernel build tree reorganized on module boundries. As an aside, so does multiple architecture support. As another aside, filesystems want to be in /sys/fs instead of spread all over the source tree at random locations. So a source tree reorganization is due. Maybe we could have CSRG assert a trademark on their source tree organization... ;-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802122311.QAA04342>