linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: remove useless acpi functions in the head file

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e1478c4b-28eb-a10b-f359-eab1f822271d@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:44:40 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: remove useless acpi functions in the head file

On 10/01/2017 08:14, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>
> commit f1bc1e4c44b1 ("ata: acpi: rework the ata acpi bind support")
> removed scsi_register_acpi_bus_type() and scsi_unregister_acpi_bus_type(),
> but forgot to remove them in the head file, do it now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
> ---
>  include/scsi/scsi.h | 10 ----------
>  1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi.h b/include/scsi/scsi.h
> index 8ec7c30..a1e1930 100644
> --- a/include/scsi/scsi.h
> +++ b/include/scsi/scsi.h
> @@ -29,16 +29,6 @@ enum scsi_timeouts {
>   */
>  #define SCAN_WILD_CARD	~0
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> -struct acpi_bus_type;
> -
> -extern int
> -scsi_register_acpi_bus_type(struct acpi_bus_type *bus);
> -
> -extern void
> -scsi_unregister_acpi_bus_type(struct acpi_bus_type *bus);
> -#endif
> -
>  /** scsi_status_is_good - check the status return.
>   *
>   * @status: the status passed up from the driver (including host and
>

Looks ok,

Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>