On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 19:26 +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 17:56 +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > >> Drop unused fsl_mpic_primary_get_version(), mpic_set_clk_ratio(), > >> mpic_set_serial_int(). > > > > I'm always happy to remove unused code, but the interesting question is why > > are > > they unused? Please tell me in the changelog. > > To being able to give a definitive answer, it's necessary to understand > the intentions of original developers of these pieces. I just can tell > these functions have no users and trivial grepping easily proves it; > I've got the impression they are here only for the sake of > implementation completeness.
Yeah OK. I didn't expect you to read the minds of the developers who wrote the code :) > Two machines at hands, e300 and e500 based, boot and run without > regressions on my workload with this series applied. The removed code > seems also been rarely touched, so it seems the series is safe at least > in general. But I can't obviously express any strong point in support of > the series, so it's completely OK to leave things as is. OK that's a good data point. > + fsl_mpic_primary_get_version() is just a safe wrapper around > fsl_mpic_get_version() for SMP configurations. While the latter is > called explicitly for handling PIC initialization and setting up error > interrupt vector depending on PIC hardware version, the former isn't > used for anything. > > + As for mpic_set_clk_ratio() and mpic_set_serial_int(), they both > are almost nine years old[1] but still have no chance to be called even > from out-of-tree modules because they both are __init and of course > aren't exported. Non-demanded functionality? > > Of course I'll include the last two paragraphs into the V2 patch > description if the explanation is convincing enough and you ACK it. If > the patch is safe it's also necessary to extend it a bit, making its > second part actually a complete revert of [1]. > > [1] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2006-June/023867.html That is more like what I was looking for. If I just get a patch saying "removed unused foo()", I have to go and dig and find out: - was it recently added and will be used soon? - is it ancient and never used, if so can we work out why, ie. feature X never landed so this code is no longer needed. - is it old code that *was* used but isn't now because commit ... removed the last user. - is it code that *should* be used, but isn't for some odd reason? So if you can provide that sort of detail for me, that really adds value to the patch. Otherwise the patch is basically just a TODO for me, to go and work out why the code is unused. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
