Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 23:25:25 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        ooo@electrozaur.com,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        hch@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libosd: Remove ignored __weak attribute
Message-ID: <20181027062525.GA22995@flashbox>
References: <20181025225548.GA10326@flashbox>
 <CAKwvOdnwmf47_m_0K5OCLmXbrkLNnekpNOPCCMeJqkuqKUbQ-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1540576908.66186.103.camel@acm.org>
 <CAKwvOdnYx60JkJHJkD7CYA9yx5Oa7Tn9q4aZ3-tcZGx++yoduQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1540589437.66186.124.camel@acm.org>
 <CAKwvOdm-xYRqCBXhLC1ceC44_rEmggW4qiSgGpRkpL+p-NadVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1540591147.66186.127.camel@acm.org>
 <CAKwvOdmUhtK10cbYFoEJJp4O8LA_F-+f68A_NcL_fm_FH6QodA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181027033552.GA29237@thunk.org>
 <ac63f6d2-d9f3-c512-892d-2e4450fd4c1e@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ac63f6d2-d9f3-c512-892d-2e4450fd4c1e@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:15:11PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/26/18 8:35 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > The second observation I'll make is that if someone is proposing a
> > cleanup patch, it's unfair to dump on the person proposing the cleanup
> > patch the (non-trivial) effort to drop a driver/file system/subsystem.
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> Maybe I was not clear enough. It never was my intention to suggest that Nick
> or Nathan should remove the OSD code. This is something I'm willing to do
> myself. BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me why the patch at
> the start of this thread was submitted by people who never have used the
> libosd driver and who do not have any plans to use it ever.
> 

Hi Bart,

We've been cleaning up Clang warnings seen in various configurations. In
this case, I believe this warning shows up in an arm64 allyesconfig
build (would probably show up in an x86_64 one too but I'm not going to
test right now).

More info: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/58

Cheers,
Nathan

> > If the maintainer wants to drop a driver/file system, that should be
> > the maintainer's responsibiltiy; not someone proposing a
> > cleanup/maintenance patch.
> 
> I think anyone who makes tree-wide changes has the freedom to suggest to
> remove a driver. Having to modify drivers that are no longer maintained when
> doing tree-wide changes can be a real pain.
> 
> Additionally, you may have missed earlier discussions on the linux-scsi
> mailing list about this driver. The first time it was suggested to remove
> this driver was several years ago. The outcome of a discussion of a few
> weeks ago is that there is agreement about the removal of this driver. See
> also the following messages:
> * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123738.html
> * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123742.html
> 
> Bart.