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?
