This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
in about 18 years before.
If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
we can remove this dead code.
Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
- Remove unnecessary label 'out'
- Add Suggested-by label in commit msg
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c | 20 ++++----------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
index 02a8158c469d..7f4e0db8eb08 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/file.c
@@ -1704,23 +1704,11 @@ static int spufs_mfc_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id)
ret = spu_acquire(ctx);
if (ret)
- goto out;
-#if 0
-/* this currently hangs */
- ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
- ctx->ops->set_mfc_query(ctx, ctx->tagwait, 2));
- if (ret)
- goto out;
- ret = spufs_wait(ctx->mfc_wq,
- ctx->ops->read_mfc_tagstatus(ctx) == ctx->tagwait);
- if (ret)
- goto out;
-#else
- ret = 0;
-#endif
+ return ret;
+
spu_release(ctx);
-out:
- return ret;
+
+ return 0;
}
static int spufs_mfc_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
--
2.39.2
On 2024/1/26 14:27, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 03:12, Kunwu Chan wrote:
>> This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
>> ("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
>> in about 18 years before.
>>
>> If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
>> we can remove this dead code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
>> Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
>
> Nobody is actively working on this code, so it clearly won't
> be needed in the future.
>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> On the other hand there is probably little use in removing
> the dead code either. It looks you sent a lot of these
> patches with identical changelog texts to remove blocks
> of dead code, which does not seem productive to me as
> these were clearly all left in the code to document
> something.
Yes, I was doing some cleanup of useless code the other day.
The previous patches were submitted to remove some code that had been
unused for a long time and was ineffective.
I didn't remove the comments in the header file and the
debugging-related parts. Because these parts may be used later.
Thank you very much for the reminder.I'll pay attention to whether it
has a document feature later.
>
> Arnd
--
Thanks,
Kunwu
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, at 03:12, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
> ("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
> in about 18 years before.
>
> If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
> we can remove this dead code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kunwu Chan <[email protected]>
> Suggested-by: Christophe Leroy <[email protected]>
Nobody is actively working on this code, so it clearly won't
be needed in the future.
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
On the other hand there is probably little use in removing
the dead code either. It looks you sent a lot of these
patches with identical changelog texts to remove blocks
of dead code, which does not seem productive to me as
these were clearly all left in the code to document
something.
Arnd
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:12:58 +0800, Kunwu Chan wrote:
> This part was commented from commit a33a7d7309d7
> ("[PATCH] spufs: implement mfc access for PPE-side DMA")
> in about 18 years before.
>
> If there are no plans to enable this part code in the future,
> we can remove this dead code.
>
> [...]
Applied to powerpc/next.
[1/1] powerpc/cell: Code cleanup for spufs_mfc_flush
https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/66d8e646e8e78ea6088d9f6b9465e211566b5133
cheers