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]

Message-ID: <48025FEA.7010202@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:32:58 +0400
From:	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...il.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>, 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

Adrian Bunk пишет:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 09:08:31PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> 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?
>> ...
> 
> 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.
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.

Thanks,
Dmitri

> 
> cu
> Adrian
> 

--
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/