[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL+tcoCVjihJc=exL4hJDaLFr=CrMx=2JgYO_F_m12-LP9Lc-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 09:12:56 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux@...blig.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files
Hi All,
I noticed this patch "relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files"
appears in the mm branch already[1], which I totally missed. Sorry for
joining the party late.
I have a different opinion on this. For me, I'm very cautious about
what those so-called legacy interfaces are and how they can work in
different cases and what the use case might be... There are still a
small number of out-of-tree users like me heavily relying on relayfs
mechanism. So my humble opinion is that if you want to remove
so-called dead code, probably clearly state why it cannot be used
anymore in the future.
Dr. David, I appreciate your patch, but please do not simply do the
random cleanup work __here__. If you take a deep look at the relayfs,
you may find there are other interfaces/functions no one uses in the
kernel tree.
I'm now checking this kind of patch in relayfs one by one to avoid
such a thing happening. I'm trying to maintain it as much as possible
since we internally use it in the networking area to output useful
information in the hot paths, a little bit like blktrace. BTW, relayfs
is really a wonderful one that helps kernel modules communicate with
userspace very efficiently. I'm trying to revive it if I can.
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything&id=46aa76118ee365c25911806e34d28fc2aa5ef997
Thanks,
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists