From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:39:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:39:00 -0400 Received: from obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.55]:38058 "EHLO obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:38:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:38:41 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser To: "J . A . Magallon" Cc: Linux Kernel , Alan Cox Subject: Re: disable_ide_dma gcc-3.0 warn Message-ID: <20010423113841.Q682@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: <20010423110753.A25081@werewolf.able.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20010423110753.A25081@werewolf.able.es>; from jamagallon@able.es on Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:07:53AM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:07:53AM +0200, J . A . Magallon wrote: > In dmi_scan.c there is the func: > static __init int disable_ide_dma(struct dmi_blacklist *d) > > But now it is unused (intentionally ?): > > static __initdata struct dmi_blacklist dmi_blacklist[]={ > #if 0 <================== > { disable_ide_dma, "KT7", { /* Overbroad right now - kill DMA on problem KT7 > boards */ > MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "KT7-RAID"), > NO_MATCH, NO_MATCH, NO_MATCH > } }, > #endif I guess this is a leftover from the VIA buggy southbridge workaround hunt. Code marked with "#if 0" and "#if 1" is usally under development and subject to changes. Or left intentionally in "#if 0" to show the reader that we had an wrong idea once, which seemed to be obviously correct (may be from the docs) and we solved it with a different method, which is not obvious or even not stated in the docs, but is the right one. So we avoid stupid patches by leaving such things for reference. In short: Don't care about new dead code too much, if it will be needed by a "#if 0" marked code section. BTW: Which revision of gcc 3.0 do you use? I had no luck compiling it yet. Please answer in private to gcc issues. Regards Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>>