Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-28 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:06:12AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > Perhaps we should modify Greg KH's "be-all, end-all document" > on "HOWTO do Linux kernel development" then... you've > contributed a boatload of work to the kernel since as far > back as 2006, but I'm a newbie who just works in an >

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-28 Thread Mike Marshall
Perhaps we should modify Greg KH's "be-all, end-all document" on "HOWTO do Linux kernel development" then... you've contributed a boatload of work to the kernel since as far back as 2006, but I'm a newbie who just works in an isolated subsystem... people like me need a reliable and authoritative ch

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-28 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:51:57AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > I think I understand what you're saying, except for this part: > > > would have been secretly disapointed at your lack of > > courage in my heart but it would have been normal and fine. > What I'm saying is that for some people the c

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-26 Thread Mike Marshall
I think I understand what you're saying, except for this part: > would have been secretly disapointed at your lack of > courage in my heart but it would have been normal and fine. I'm pretty sure that Linus won't accept a pull request from me at the wrong time and that I won't send one at the wro

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-26 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 06:09:39PM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > We're on rc7 now. Linus said in LWN that there might be a rc8 this time. > I'll try to get this pulled in 4.9-rc8 I hope, or sometime in 4.10... > it is just a > few lines of code that I don't think can be reached. Sorry for the confu

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-25 Thread Mike Marshall
We're on rc7 now. Linus said in LWN that there might be a rc8 this time. I'll try to get this pulled in 4.9-rc8 I hope, or sometime in 4.10... it is just a few lines of code that I don't think can be reached. Sorry for the confusion. -Mike On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-25 Thread Dan Carpenter
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 07:31:11AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: > This seems like a good and proper patch to me, and simple too. > But like all changes, it needs tested. While I was testing it, I > discovered a regression in the associated userspace code. I > "bisected" (we use SVN for the userspace

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-24 Thread Mike Marshall
This seems like a good and proper patch to me, and simple too. But like all changes, it needs tested. While I was testing it, I discovered a regression in the associated userspace code. I "bisected" (we use SVN for the userspace part of Orangefs) down to the commit that caused the regression, and s

Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-22 Thread Martin Brandenburg
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > The "perf_counter_reset" case has already been handled above. > Moreover "ORANGEFS_PARAM_REQUEST_OP_READAHEAD_COUNT_SIZE" is not a really > consistent. > It is likely that this (dead) code is a cut and paste left over. That's exactly what this is.

[PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code

2016-11-21 Thread Christophe JAILLET
The "perf_counter_reset" case has already been handled above. Moreover "ORANGEFS_PARAM_REQUEST_OP_READAHEAD_COUNT_SIZE" is not a really consistent. It is likely that this (dead) code is a cut and paste left over. Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET --- fs/orangefs/orangefs-sysfs.c | 9 - 1