On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:29:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 09:26:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > 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. > > 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_PUBLIC, so let's get an Ack from Andrew/etc? My main reluctance is that I know there is HW out there that can do coherent, and I want to believe they are coming with patches, just too slowly. But I'd also rather those people defend themselves :P Thanks, Jason
