Hi Max, On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:26:56 -0500 Max Reitz <mre...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 at 16:41, Thomas Huth wrote: > > qemu_try_blockalign0() and nbd_export_close_all() are not > > used anymore and thus can be removed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Cc: Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > --- > > block.c | 11 ----------- > > include/block/block.h | 1 - > > include/block/nbd.h | 1 - > > nbd.c | 9 --------- > > 4 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > NACK, I'm using nbd_export_close_all() in my "block: Rework > bdrv_close_all()" series. Alright, if it's going to be used again, then it must not be removed, of course. > I'm not so sure about qemu_try_blockalign0(); it has never been used, > but I introduced it because we have qemu_blockalign(), > qemu_try_blockalign(), and qemu_blockalign0() (the latter of which I > introduced along with qemu_try_blockalign0(), and this function is used). > > So I'd be fine with removing qemu_try_blockalign0() again, but I don't > really see the point in doing so. It is not a function that is per-se > deprecated or something, quite the opposite, actually. If people can > make use of that function, they should most certainly do so. I'm not a big fan of providing unused (and likely untested) functions just because they could be used somewhen in a distant future (unless they are part of a proper library) ... I'd rather add such functions again when they are really being used. Anyway, this is just a small, trivial function, and if you prefer to keep it, then please ignore this patch simply completely. There is certainly no urgent need for removing unused functions, I just wanted to make people aware that there are some. Thomas
