From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261590AbVDJTs7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:48:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261593AbVDJTs7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:48:59 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58505 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261590AbVDJTs5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:48:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] re-export cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue From: Arjan van de Ven To: James Bottomley Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <1113160044.6737.12.camel@mulgrave> References: <1113160044.6737.12.camel@mulgrave> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:48:50 +0200 Message-Id: <1113162531.15213.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (3.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:07 -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > This was unexported by Arjan because we have no current users. > > However, during a conversion from tasklets to workqueues of the parisc > led functions, we ran across a case where this was needed. In > particular, the open coded equivalent of > cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue was implemented incorrectly, which is, > I think, all the evidence necessary that this is a useful API. I have absolutely no problem with such an export / unstatic if there are users... could you just send them in one go ?