Hi Arjan, > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 11:17 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > These functions are part of the SMBus specs. The fact that no client uses > > them for now doesn't mean that they will never be used. On 2004-11-09, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > yet at the same time they bloat the kernel for everyone NOW. > If a driver magically appears that wants to use them, it's trivial to > put these in, but I see absolutely no excuse for having them in all > kernel binaries without users. This is how the kernel grows and grows > for no good reason. There's dozens of such functions all over the > kernel, and they take up unswappable memory all over. I am sorry if my original point was misunderstood. I saw the various posts on the LKML these days about code unbloating all around the kernel tree, and agree it is a sane thing to do. I do not object to the removal (binary-wise) of unused functions. I were merely suggesting that a discussion would have been welcome, about which unused functions of i2c-core should actually be removed and how they should be removed. As a matter of fact and as I underlined in my previous post, the patch you sent to Greg wasn't consistent (IMHO at least), and this could have been avoided. Removing code we know will be needed within a few months could have been avoided as well, which would mean less work for Greg and others. Anyway, no need to panic, no irreparable harm was done and it's not 2.6.10 yet. I simply, kindly ask for more cooperation with us i2c/lm_sensors folks next time. For now, I suggest that we finish what you started by removing the now irrelevant function declarations in linux/i2c.h. As for the various constants, we can leave them in place. They don't waste memory as far as I can see, and the fact that a given SMBus command isn't supported anymore for kernel clients doesn't prevent busses to declare that they would support them [1]. If nothing else, it lets userspace use them (through i2c-dev), even though I doubt there are that many users here either. I may propose a simple patch that does this, unless you want to care about it yourself. Thanks, Jean [1] In fact it looks like most bus drivers don't properly implement these anyway, because there are no users at the moment, as you noticed.
