Re: [PATCH v3] module: Rename EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES to EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES

[Daniel Gomez]

On 22/07/2025 10.53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 10:49:48AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 7/22/25 10:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 10:26:43AM +0200, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe with no reply, you can queue it then?
>>>>
>>>> + Jiri, Stephen and Greg, added to the To: list.
>>>>
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL_FOR_MODULES macro was merged [1] through Masahiro's
>>>> pull request in v6.16-rc1. This patch from Vlastimil renames the macro to
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES. This means Jiri's patch b20d6576cdb3 "serial: 8250:
>>>> export RSA functions" will need to be updated accordingly. I'd like like to
>>>> know how you prefer to proceed, since it was requested to have this merged as a
>>>> fix before Linus releases a new kernel with the former name.
>>>
>>> So you want this in 6.16-final?  Ok, do so and then someone needs to fix
>>> up the build breakage in linux-next and in all of the pull requests to
>>> Linus for 6.17-rc1 :)
>>>

I see... that doesn't sound like it was the right approach. I didn't expect
follow-up fixes to be needed for the next merge window. Thanks for the heads-up.
I'll hold off on merging this for now.

>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAK7LNAQunzxOHR+vMZLf8kqxyRtLx-Z2G2VZquJmndrT9TZjiQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Masahiro, just a heads-up that I plan to merge this through the linux-modules
>>>> tree unless you advise otherwise.
>>>
>>> Why not just do the rename after 6.17-rc1 is out?  That way all new
>>> users will be able to be caught at that point in time.  There's no issue
>>
>> Hm there might be people basing their new exports for 6.18 on 6.17-rc1. They
>> would have to be told to use rc2 then.
> 
> Yes, that's normal, nothing wrong with that at all, we make api name
> changes across the tree quite often (i.e. almost every-other release.)
> 
>> Maybe the best way would be if Linus
>> did this just before tagging rc1, while fixing up all users merged during
>> the merge window?
> 
> Again, what's wrong with -rc2?  Anyone caught using this on only -rc1
> will get a quick "this broke the build" report in linux-next so it's not
> like this is going to be unnoticed at all.

I think Christian had some renaming candidates. Christian, does this work for
you?