On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 08:50:22AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:

If this series is reposted, please combine patches 1/6 and 2/6. Anyway,
this series looks good to me.

Thanks for taking a look.

I will repost in a few days when back to a computer to fix the subject
of patch 2 since you are right, it does wrongly suggest that the
implementation is moved.

For learning purposes, do you mind quickly sharing your rationale for
combining 1 and 2? To me they are in the same area but still separate
things: one removes dead code, the other increases encapsulation. Each
is a small but worthwhile cleanup, they can be applied in any order and
each can be applied without the other. It's true that, while patch 2
without patch 1 works, it would increase confusion but I find that an
argument to order 2 after 1, not to say they are one thing.

I'd also find it hard to describe what that combined patch does except
by calling out two things: "remove dead code and move the declaration".
Your suggested "unexport" seems more confusing than clarifying, I'd
argue that today the symbol is not exported since that ifdef always
compiles the export out.