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

Greg KH
2013-05-09T15:15:11Z

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:31:18AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> 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?

Sure, send them on.

thanks,

greg k-h