Re: [PATCH 3/9] vt: delete unneeded functions register_con_driver|take_over_console

Peter Hurley
2013-05-09T11:31:24Z

On 05/08/2013 04:45 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:37:14PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 05/08/2013 04:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2013 02:13 PM, Wang YanQing wrote:
>>>>> Now there is no place use register_con_driver|take_over_console,
>>>>> and we can achieve their function with do_register_con_driver|
>>>>> do_take_over_console easily, so just delete them to reduce code duplication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/tty/vt/vt.c | 45 ---------------------------------------------
>>>>> include/linux/console.h | 2 --
>>>>> 2 files changed, 47 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
>>>>> index fbd447b..852d470 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
>>>>> @@ -3576,26 +3576,6 @@ err:
>>>>> return retval;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -/**
>>>>> - * register_con_driver - register console driver to console layer
>>>>> - * @csw: console driver
>>>>> - * @first: the first console to take over, minimum value is 0
>>>>> - * @last: the last console to take over, maximum value is MAX_NR_CONSOLES -1
>>>>> - *
>>>>> - * DESCRIPTION: This function registers a console driver which can later
>>>>> - * bind to a range of consoles specified by @first and @last. It will
>>>>> - * also initialize the console driver by calling con_startup().
>>>>> - */
>>>>> -int register_con_driver(const struct consw *csw, int first, int last)
>>>>> -{
>>>>> - int retval;
>>>>> -
>>>>> - console_lock();
>>>>> - retval = do_register_con_driver(csw, first, last);
>>>>> - console_unlock();
>>>>> - return retval;
>>>>> -}
>>>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_con_driver);
>>>>
>>>> Maybe register_con_driver() should print a deprecated warning
>>>> for a release or two before we remove it.
>>>
>>> If there are no in-kernel users, why do we need to keep it around?
>>
>> Well, it's not my position that we *need* to keep previously exported
>> symbols around, but I do think a release or two is enough of a
>> heads-up for out-of-tree drivers to transition.
>
> I don't care about out-of-tree drivers, as we have no insight into what
> they do, but they can see everything we can do, it's up to them to keep
> up with us.
>
> Or even better yet, get merged into the tree, and then these types of
> things aren't even an issue.

So now that no in-tree driver declares TTY_HW_COOK_IN/OUT, you're ok
with patches for their removal?