From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753745AbYDMTIt (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:08:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752245AbYDMTIm (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:08:42 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.30]:38850 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751653AbYDMTIl (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:08:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Xh+xBEaZITWEN7+OjOoqjY+o69ixxuQ7FxLEdwvPBm7lDR64HmwqBoPg/x8lQJcI/R46j1w9vDLDTJ1FPBV/LNpa4kkH+yv93mubwMrwCcVUMNBD5zb+IOu+D4DHRzAX/jDjQ2MLw0D21M2VPUQn161F19BhSnj0hD6lIvnoM+U= Message-ID: <9a8748490804131208o220cd763k33b74d547911a8f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:08:31 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Adrian Bunk" Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] mfd/sm501.c: #if 0 unused functions Cc: "Ben Dooks" , "Vincent Sanders" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080413190326.GB21204@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080413181531.GD2182@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <9a8748490804131155g3df93ba7s9c2131a957391ee3@mail.gmail.com> <20080413190326.GB21204@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > B) If the code is currently unused but will be used soon (definition > of 'soon' left as an exercise for the reader), then we should either > a) remove the code now and reinstate it later along with the code that > uses it, or b) just leave it alone so we don't have pointless churn of > two patches, one that just comments out the code and then later > another that just uncomments it. -- Jesper Juhl 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