Re: Dead code by symbols

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 18.09.24 12:55, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org) wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 01:39:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Now, it does take some more guesswork, for example an unused function
>>>> which was added a couple of years back, might be something that's
>>>> there for consistency,
>>>
>>> I know people will find reasons to do something like that, but we really
>>> *shouldn't* be maintaining / dragging along dead code that nobody might ever
>>> use.
>>
>> There never is any reason to keep dead code around.
> 
> Yeh I mostly agree; and indeed I'll be sending many many patches to remove
> the bucket loads of dead code I find; but as I say, there's a really
> big variation from the dead-for-20 years, to relatively new, to
> functions that seem to make sense next to the file they're part of.
> So I'll get to those later, I'll get rid of the very dead ones first.

Makes sense to me. Thanks for doing that work, Dave!

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb