[PATCH libdrm 02/24] radeon: remove empty function declarations

[Emil Velikov]

On 1 April 2015 at 22:26, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:57:40PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 1 April 2015 at 21:34, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 1 April 2015 at 18:30, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:15:13PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> >>> Missing definition and unused since their introduction.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse at redhat.com>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> NAK
>> >>
>> >> I use all this in tools to debug lockup. Best course of action is to
>> >> exclude bof.h from being distributed. My tools static link and i just
>> >> point them to libdrm git tree.
>> >>
>> > Did not notice any mention of such out-of-tree tools in the commit
>> > that introduced these functions, so I've naively assumed that they are
>> > unused.
>> Scratch that - I'm blind.
>>
>> Upon closer look at your radeondb repo, I cannot see any static
>> linking in there. Also it seems that some of the functionality is
>> duplicated between the two. With the radeondb version being out of
>> date :'(
>
> Yeah i guess i never pushed anywhere patches that did that, divergence btw
> my memory and what is out there. All this symbol can just be hidden and
> never exported. It would cleaner, but i still need the bof.h intact as i
> tend to just cp it afaict into my local radeondb copy so that i am in
> sync with libdrm code.
>
I can volunteer with the cleanup/integration of radeondb next to
libdrm_radeon. If you update your repo (or push your work elsewhere),
I could double-check, integrate and nuke the duplication. It will
avoid the next person from coming over and trying to nuke things, the
divergence mentioned, plus the copy/pasting of bof.[ch] every time you
use the tool.

How does that sound ?

Cheers,
Emil