From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758599AbYBAP4i (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:56:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756814AbYBAP4a (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:56:30 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57697 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754460AbYBAP43 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 10:56:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:56:02 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Adrian Bunk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs Message-ID: <20080201155602.GC32085@elte.hu> References: <20080128221452.GL8767@does.not.exist> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080128221452.GL8767@does.not.exist> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Adrian Bunk 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