From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756849AbYDMTwU (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:52:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752726AbYDMTpA (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:45:00 -0400 Received: from smtp6.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.40]:46892 "EHLO smtp6.pp.htv.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755004AbYDMTot (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:44:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:43:48 +0300 From: Adrian Bunk To: Dmitri Vorobiev Cc: Jesper Juhl , Ben Dooks , Vincent Sanders , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] mfd/sm501.c: #if 0 unused functions Message-ID: <20080413194348.GA13920@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <20080413181531.GD2182@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <9a8748490804131155g3df93ba7s9c2131a957391ee3@mail.gmail.com> <20080413190326.GB21204@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <9a8748490804131208o220cd763k33b74d547911a8f0@mail.gmail.com> <20080413192420.GC21204@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <48025FEA.7010202@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <48025FEA.7010202@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:32:58PM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote: > Adrian Bunk пишет: > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 09:08:31PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > >> On 13/04/2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > >>> > On 13/04/2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>> > > This patch #if 0's the following unused functions: > >>> > > - sm501_find_clock() > >>> > > - sm501_gpio_get() > >>> > > - sm501_gpio_set() > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > Hi Adrian, > >>> > > >>> > I know we've discussed this before, but I have to comment on this once more. > >>> > > >>> > Why is it that you seem to prefer adding '#if 0' around blocks of > >>> > unused code instead of removing it outright? > >>> > >>>> ... > >>> When I removed unused code outright some people complained that they > >>> plan to use it tomorrow or in the next millenium or whenever. > >>> > >>> When I #if 0 it other people complain that I should remove it outright. > >>> > >>> So whatever I do, there's always someone complaining. ;-) > >>> > >>> In this case the code looks as if it might get used at some point in the > >>> future. > >>> > >>> But if a maintainer tells me to resend a patch with the code removed > >>> instead of #if 0'ed I'm always glad to do this. > >>> > >> But, you are completely ignoring the case of "the code is unused, but > >> will probably be used soon, so I'll just leave it alone and avoid the > >> churn". Why? What's the point of commenting it out now and then > >> enabling it again in a month or two - isn't that just pointless churn? > >> ... > > > > It's unused since more than one year, so chances are it won't get used > > in a month or two. > > > > As I said, if a maintainer wants me to remove it outright I'll be glad > > to do so. > > > > And as I said, no matter whatever I do, there's always someone > > complaining... > > It appears to me that if you had complaint statistics, that would have > provided a solid ground for choosing the right strategy for dead code. I tried both ways, and in both situations some people were complaining. No statistics required for knowing that there will anyway be complaints and there's nothing I can do about it. > Offhand, I have a feeling that the fraction of cases when the code that > has been abandoned long ago is about to be reused in near future ought > to be small. I make a guess how to handle it, and the maintainer then says if he wants it differently. > Thanks, > Dmitri 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