netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ksz884x: remove unused #defines

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7ab4950ea08e89fe0481a08a8b49de4291b9451f.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:06:35 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ksz884x: remove unused #defines

On Thu, 2023-04-06 at 18:12 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:00:17AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 15:37:36 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-04-05 at 10:39 +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > Remove unused #defines from ksz884x driver.
> > > > 
> > > > These #defines may have some value in documenting the hardware.
> > > > But that information may be accessed via scm history.  
> > > 
> > > I personally have a slight preference for keeping these definitions in
> > > the sources (for doc purposes), but it's not a big deal. 
> > > 
> > > Any 3rd opinion more then welcome!
> > 
> > I had the same reaction, FWIW.
> > 
> > Cleaning up unused "code" macros, pure software stuff makes perfect
> > sense. But I feel a bit ambivalent about removing definitions of HW
> > registers and bits.
> 
> I guess that it two down-votes for removing the #defines.
> 
> Would it be acceptable if I reworked the series to only remove
> the dead code - which would leave only subset of patch 3/3 ?

I would be fine with that.

Thanks!

Paolo