LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [2.6 patch] unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs
@ 2008-01-28 22:14 Adrian Bunk
  2008-02-01 15:56 ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2008-01-28 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: linux-kernel

This patch removes the unused EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs).

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>

---
788c6505d48f13a2b6d3f7313599dad12ec869fe 
diff --git a/kernel/softlockup.c b/kernel/softlockup.c
index c1d7655..6616250 100644
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -65,7 +65,6 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		per_cpu(touch_timestamp, cpu) = 0;
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs);
 
 /*
  * This callback runs from the timer interrupt, and checks


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [2.6 patch] unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs
  2008-01-28 22:14 [2.6 patch] unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs Adrian Bunk
@ 2008-02-01 15:56 ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2008-02-01 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds


* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:

> This patch removes the unused 
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs).

NACK. Please use your brain Adrian, this is part of an API vector. 
Another similarly bogus patch you did is:

   http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/31/376

Either we unexport all of them, or none of them. Or we remove all 
aspects of an individual API call, or no aspects of it. You are sending 
export removal patches without apparently checking their contexts. This 
is the fourth bogus patch of yours that i've come across within a 24 
hour timeframe. Yes, sometimes unused symbol exports should be removed 
because they are just silly or unnecessary, but not all the time.

Same goes for your 'static' keyword patches. We should do it like the 
spelling fixes: send _one_ large 'add static' patch near the end of the 
release and we'll commit it without asking. Currently you are wasting a 
little bit from many people's time, by getting these tiny little "remove 
static" patches into every tree, every month, all the time. It's an 
utterly wasteful way to spend our time.

Perhaps you might want to spend some of your time to write some new, 
useful Linux kernel code and start maintaining it for a change, so that 
you can get the feel for the real problems and real issues that the 
Linux kernel is facing these days. Hint: it's not the extra exports and 
it's not the 'static' markers, and it's not the dead code either that 
you are removing so eagerly. You are not a newbie anymore.
 
	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-01 15:56 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-01-28 22:14 [2.6 patch] unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs Adrian Bunk
2008-02-01 15:56 ` Ingo Molnar

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).