Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-18 Thread Philip Craig
On 04/14/2006 06:26 AM, David S. Miller wrote: > These interfaces were added so that new users of netlink could > write their code more easily. > > Unused does not equate to "comment out or delete". Does a GENETLINK Kconfig option make sense (possibly dependant on EMBEDDED)? I'm unsure whether th

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-18 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:48:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Maw, 2006-04-18 at 16:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > OTOH, we also have to always check whether users are expected soon (and > > recheck whether there are really users after some time) since every > > single export makes the kernel

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-18 Thread Alan Cox
On Maw, 2006-04-18 at 16:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > OTOH, we also have to always check whether users are expected soon (and > recheck whether there are really users after some time) since every > single export makes the kernel larger for nearly everyone. Of course fixing the amount of memory

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-18 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:56:12PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: >... > Although it is always statically built systems, it is still very > convenient way of netlink usage for others (future modular systems). I do understand Dave's "new API, users are expected soon" point. OTOH, we also have to a

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-14 Thread Evgeniy Polyakov
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 12:32:02PM +0200, Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:26:03PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:27:10 +0200 > > > > > This patch contains the following possible cleanups plus

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:26:03PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:27:10 +0200 > > > This patch contains the following possible cleanups plus changes related > > to them: > > - make the following needlessly global functions static:

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-13 Thread David S. Miller
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:27:10 +0200 > This patch contains the following possible cleanups plus changes related > to them: > - make the following needlessly global functions static: > - attr.c: __nla_reserve() > - attr.c: __nla_put() > - #if 0 the follow

[RFC: 2.6 patch] net/netlink/: possible cleanups

2006-04-13 Thread Adrian Bunk
This patch contains the following possible cleanups plus changes related to them: - make the following needlessly global functions static: - attr.c: __nla_reserve() - attr.c: __nla_put() - #if 0 the following unused global functions: - attr.c: nla_validate() - attr.c: nla_find() - attr.c