[2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-12-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
This patch removes ths unused function xdr_decode_string(). Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Charles Lever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- include/linux/sunrpc/xdr.h |1 - net/sunrpc/xdr.c | 21 - 2 fi

RE: [2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-11-23 Thread Lever, Charles
> On Wednesday November 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote: > > > so i don't remember why you are removing > xdr_decode_string. are we sure > > > that no-one will need this functionality in the future? > it is harmless > > > to remove

Re: [2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-11-23 Thread Neil Brown
On Wednesday November 23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote: > > so i don't remember why you are removing xdr_decode_string. are we sure > > that no-one will need this functionality in the future? it is harmless > > to remove today, but i wo

Re: [2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-11-23 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 04:31:14AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Lever, Charles wrote: > > > > > actually, can we hold off on this change? the RPC > > transport switch will > > > eventually need most of those EXPORT_SYMBOLs. > > > > Am I right to ass

RE: [2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-11-23 Thread Lever, Charles
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Lever, Charles wrote: > > > actually, can we hold off on this change? the RPC > transport switch will > > eventually need most of those EXPORT_SYMBOLs. > > Am I right to assume this will happen in the foreseeable future? the first portion of the tran

[2.6 patch] net/sunrpc/xdr.c: remove xdr_decode_string()

2005-11-22 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:13:14AM -0700, Lever, Charles wrote: > actually, can we hold off on this change? the RPC transport switch will > eventually need most of those EXPORT_SYMBOLs. Am I right to assume this will happen in the foreseeable future? > the only harmless change i see below is re