On Tuesday 13 January 2015 18:13:32 Paul Bolle wrote: > > For the seqbuf_dump() stuff there are apparently users. I forgot the > details, but the sound people wanted to keep that declaration (and some > related ancient things) in the header involved to keep some really > ancient stuff buildable. > > But the kexec_load declaration isn't very useful for userspace, see the > patch I submitted in > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1389791824.17407.9.camel@x220 . And After my > attempt the export of that declaration has also been discussed in > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/115373b6ac68ee7a305975896e1c4971e8e51d4c.1408731991.git.geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > In that last discussion no one has been able to point to an actual user > of it. So, as far as I can tell, no one actually uses it. Which makes > sense, because including this header by itself doesn't give one access > to a useful definition of kexec_load. So why bother with the > declaration? > > The last time that Geoff has been trying to get that patch applied > should be > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/b0702fc4186db21820d686e89afd6480560823db.1415837218.git.geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx I'd rather see that go in. > Fine with me as well. As long as we can find someone to take one of the patches, I'm happy. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
