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: <9a8748490804131234v26fefe9dp633fd0509b0fff6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:34:24 +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 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.
>
Then I really don't see why you chose the '#if 0' option. In that case
it would seem to me that either "leave it alone, don't submit a patch"
or "submit a patch to remove it outright" would both be more
preferable options.

>  As I said, if a maintainer wants me to remove it outright I'll be glad
>  to do so.
>
I don't doubt that.

>  And as I said, no matter whatever I do, there's always someone
>  complaining...
>
Please don't see my comments as complaints. They are not intended as
such. I'm merely currious why we keep adding all these '#if 0's since
I don't see the point and I can just see them piling up into some huge
janitorial mountain from hell to be tackled some time in the future by
whomever is masochistic enough to try ;-)

-- 
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/