Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S973397AbXHMQtc (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:49:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S972542AbXHMQIi (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:38 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:6502 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S972526AbXHMQIf (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:08:35 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.19,255,1183359600"; d="scan'208";a="280331935" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:05:33 -0700 From: Kristen Carlson Accardi To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pcihpd-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] cpqphp_ctrl.c: remove dead code Message-Id: <20070813090533.4a363c5a.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20070809233910.GB18938@stusta.de> References: <20070723145105.GK26212@stusta.de> <20070809145140.654303a0.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070809222427.GA32127@suse.de> <20070809154702.caa67a61.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070809230436.GA18938@stusta.de> <20070809162001.a5dc0b76.kristen.c.accardi@intel.com> <20070809233910.GB18938@stusta.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.13; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1206 Lines: 27 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:39:10 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: > As I've wrote in the patch description, all it does is to remove an if() > check that could never be false (which is easily verifyable if you look > at the source code). > > I've also verified that my patch does not change a single bit in the > object file (after compilation with gcc 4.2.1). while you are correct that your patch will not change the object, the reason I think that we should not do this patch is because it appears to me that this code path was meant to be taken, and perhaps it was a mistake to return -ENOMEM further up (the reason the code isn't taken). It seems to me that the thing to do is to leave the code as is, and then when someone picks up the code again, they can clean it up after they've determined they truly don't want that code path taken. My definition of trivial is a patch that is both simple and obviously the right thing to do. Kristen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/