unexport touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs

This patch removes the unused EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs).

---
788c6505d48f13a2b6d3f7313599dad12ec869fe

index c1d7655..6616250 100644
@@ -65,7 +65,6 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
 		per_cpu(touch_timestamp, cpu) = 0;
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs);
 
 /*
  * This callback runs from the timer interrupt, and checks

NACK. Please use your brain Adrian, this is part of an API vector. Another similarly bogus patch you did is:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/31/376

Either we unexport all of them, or none of them. Or we remove all aspects of an individual API call, or no aspects of it. You are sending export removal patches without apparently checking their contexts. This is the fourth bogus patch of yours that i've come across within a 24 hour timeframe. Yes, sometimes unused symbol exports should be removed because they are just silly or unnecessary, but not all the time.

Same goes for your 'static' keyword patches. We should do it like the spelling fixes: send _one_ large 'add static' patch near the end of the release and we'll commit it without asking. Currently you are wasting a little bit from many people's time, by getting these tiny little "remove static" patches into every tree, every month, all the time. It's an utterly wasteful way to spend our time.

Perhaps you might want to spend some of your time to write some new, useful Linux kernel code and start maintaining it for a change, so that you can get the feel for the real problems and real issues that the Linux kernel is facing these days. Hint: it's not the extra exports and it's not the 'static' markers, and it's not the dead code either that you are removing so eagerly. You are not a newbie anymore.

Ingo