[2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Adrian Bunk]

qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old	2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c	2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100
@@ -23,10 +23,12 @@
 #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
 #include <linux/bitops.h>
 
+#if 0
 int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	return 0;
 }
+#endif  /*  0  */
 
 static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size,
 		       int *const tf)

Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/3/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
>
> --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old   2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c       2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100
> @@ -23,10 +23,12 @@
>  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
>
> +#if 0
>  int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>         return 0;
>  }
> +#endif  /*  0  */
>
>  static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size,
>                        int *const tf)
>

Adrian,
You submit a lot of nice patches, but your "#if 0" patches have always
puzzled me. Why is it that you prefer to use #if 0 to remove code
rather than simply delete it?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:28:31PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 12/3/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old   2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c       2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -23,10 +23,12 @@
> >  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
> >  #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >
> > +#if 0
> >  int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb)
> >  {
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > +#endif  /*  0  */
> >
> >  static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size,
> >                        int *const tf)
> >
> 
> Adrian,
> You submit a lot of nice patches, but your "#if 0" patches have always
> puzzled me. Why is it that you prefer to use #if 0 to remove code
> rather than simply delete it?

I started with patches simply deleting the code, but since too often 
people complained "we might need this code at some time in the future", 
I've switched to using the #if 0's...

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Anders Larsen]

From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net>

--- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old	2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c	2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100
@@ -23,10 +23,12 @@
 #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
 #include <linux/bitops.h>
 
+#if 0
 int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	return 0;
 }
+#endif  /*  0  */
 
 static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size,
 		       int *const tf)