linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] mfd/sm501.c: #if 0 unused functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:08:31 +0200
From:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Ben Dooks" <ben@...tec.co.uk>,
	"Vincent Sanders" <vince@...tec.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] mfd/sm501.c: #if 0 unused functions

On 13/04/2008, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>  > On 13/04/2008, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> 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 <jesper.juhl@...il.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/