search for: is_device_priv

On Thu 13-06-19 11:43:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The code hasn't been used since it was added to the tree, and doesn't > appear to actually be usable. Mark it as BROKEN until either a user > comes along or we finally give up on it. I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code. > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> Anyway

...Mark it as BROKEN until either a user > > comes along or we finally give up on it. > > I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code. I looked into that as I now got the feedback twice. It would create a conflict with another tree cleaning things up around the is_device_private defintion, but otherwise I'd be glad to just remove it. Jason, as this goes through your tree, do you mind the additional conflict?

...ser > > > comes along or we finally give up on it. > > > > I would go even further and simply remove all the DEVICE_PUBLIC code. > > I looked into that as I now got the feedback twice. It would > create a conflict with another tree cleaning things up around the > is_device_private defintion, but otherwise I'd be glad to just remove > it. > > Jason, as this goes through your tree, do you mind the additional > conflict? Which tree and what does the resolution look like? Also, I don't want to be making the decision if we should keep/remove DEVICE_PUBLI...