Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.

I see, if a function in a module is not marked by static ,it can be
accessed by any other function in kernel, while , using a static can
avoid it .

thanks a lot !!


2005/8/11, Giuliano Pochini <[email protected]>:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, n l wrote:
> 
> > could you explain its reason for using static ?
> 
> Anything which is never referenced from another file should be
> static in order to keep namespace pollution low.
> 
> 
> --
> Giuliano.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
  - From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

References:
- why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
  - From: n l <[email protected]>
- Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
  - From: Giuliano Pochini <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
Next by Date: Re: How to reclaim inode pages on demand
Previous by thread: Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
Next by thread: Re: why the interrupt handler should be marked "static" for it is never called directly from another file.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind]