unexport lookup_hash

unexport lookup_hash

[Dave Jones]

I just stumbled across this whilst checking for planned feature removal,
and missed any discussion why this didn't happen, so I assume Christoph forgot.

Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>

--- linux-2.6.15.noarch/fs/namei.c~	2006-02-03 16:20:49.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15.noarch/fs/namei.c	2006-02-03 16:21:07.000000000 -0500
@@ -2668,7 +2668,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(follow_up);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_write_access); /* binfmt_aout */
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(getname);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(lock_rename);
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(lookup_hash);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(lookup_one_len);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_follow_link_light);
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(page_put_link);
--- linux-2.6.15.noarch/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt~	2006-02-03 16:21:11.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15.noarch/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt	2006-02-03 16:21:40.000000000 -0500
@@ -116,13 +116,6 @@ Who:	Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org
 
 ---------------------------
 
-What:	EXPORT_SYMBOL(lookup_hash)
-When:	January 2006
-Why:	Too low-level interface.  Use lookup_one_len or lookup_create instead.
-Who:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
-
----------------------------
-
 What:	CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING
 When:	June 2006
 Why:	Config option is there to see if gcc is good enough. (in january

Re: unexport lookup_hash

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:22:59PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> I just stumbled across this whilst checking for planned feature removal,
> and missed any discussion why this didn't happen, so I assume Christoph forgot.
>...

I did beat you by a few minutes.  :-)

This patch wasn't possible before the latest -mm since 
net/sunrpc/rpc_pipe.c still used it.

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

Re: unexport lookup_hash

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:32:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:22:59PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I just stumbled across this whilst checking for planned feature removal,
> > and missed any discussion why this didn't happen, so I assume Christoph forgot.
> >...
> 
> I did beat you by a few minutes.  :-)

and your patch also makes it static which is possible now.  Andrew also queued
up the patch already, so this one won't apply anymore.