From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e2.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72930DDFC8 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:17:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0BHH927026191 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:17:09 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id l0BHH98A289674 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:17:09 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l0BHH8WJ018470 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:17:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:17:06 -0600 To: Akira Iguchi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/ata: export some static functions in libata-core.c Message-ID: <20070111171706.GG6177@austin.ibm.com> References: <200701110853.l0B8rtGK009404@toshiba.co.jp> <200701111008.34866.arnd@arndb.de> <200701110928.l0B9SUri015056@toshiba.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200701110928.l0B9SUri015056@toshiba.co.jp> From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, Arnd Bergmann , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:30:55PM +0900, Akira Iguchi wrote: > Hi, Arnd-san. > > Thank you for checking our patches. > > >On Thursday 11 January 2007 09:56, Akira Iguchi wrote: > >> This patch modifies some static functions in libata-core.c > >> and libata.h to use them in ata_scc.c. > > > >Exporting new symbols needs some explanation here about why they > >should now be global for ata_scc while the existing drivers > >did not need them. Since the patch otherwise only moves stuff > >around as needed, I assume it's good. > > I thought it was better to use common functions as far as possible. Yes, I agree that it is better to use common functions when possible. Why is it that other drivers did not need this functions? Did they copy them? Or maybe they don't need them? --linas