From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/acpi: remove unused exported functions Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:29:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20041106212917.GP1295@stusta.de> References: <20041105215021.GF1295@stusta.de> <1099707007.13834.1969.camel@d845pe> <20041106114844.GK1295@stusta.de> <418CEE3A.40503@conectiva.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <418CEE3A.40503@conectiva.com.br> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Len Brown , ACPI Developers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 01:31:06PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Suggestion that satisfies both of you, I think: > > #undef ACPI_FUTURE_USAGE > #ifdef ACPI_FUTURE_USAGE > tons of unused exported functions > #endif /* ACPU_FUTURE_USAGE */ > > This is what is being done in at least one case in the kernel network > subsystem, incremental patches adds new functions, to be used by > future patches, but sometimes Real Life (tm) gets in the way and the > programmer stalls development for some time, no problem, just ifdef it. > > When, in the future, some functions start being used, hey, very easy > to remove the #ifdef. > > Even for people trying to debug such subsystems eventually to get > something working its _nice_ to know at first glance what is really > being used, speeding up the process for the benefit or everybody. That's a good idea. To make it easier, I could send a patc to move all the ACPI EXPORT_SYMBOL's away from acpi_ksyms.c or you have to touch two files for every function. @Len: What's your opinion on this proposal? > Best Regards, > > - Arnaldo >... 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