Subject: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

From: Adrian Bunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:32:02 +0200

On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:26:03PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:27:10 +0200
> 
> > This patch contains the following possible cleanups plus changes related 
> > to them:
> > - make the following needlessly global functions static:
> >   - attr.c: __nla_reserve()
> >   - attr.c: __nla_put()
> > - #if 0 the following unused global functions:
> >   - attr.c: nla_validate()
> >   - attr.c: nla_find()
> >   - attr.c: nla_memcpy()
> >   - attr.c: nla_memcmp()
> >   - attr.c: nla_strcmp()
> >   - attr.c: nla_reserve()
> >   - genetlink.c: genl_unregister_ops()
> > - remove the following unused EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
> >   - af_netlink.c: netlink_set_nonroot
> >   - attr.c: nla_parse
> >   - attr.c: nla_strlcpy
> >   - attr.c: nla_put
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[email-masked]>
> 
> Bunk-bot, you have to stop.
> 
> These interfaces were added so that new users of netlink could
> write their code more easily.
> 
> Unused does not equate to "comment out or delete".

Can you give a more detailed answer which parts of my patch you disagree 
with?

Is the export of netlink_set_nonroot that seems to be both present and 
unused since at least kernel 2.6.0 covered by your statement?

Anything else where a removal might be OK?

I'll then send a stripped-down patch (if any non-empty subset of my 
patch is OK).

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed