Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:26:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:26:00 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:7044 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:26:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:28:46 -0600 Message-Id: <200207221728.g6MHSkY15219@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: martin@dalecki.de Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.27 devfs In-Reply-To: <3D3BE1DD.3040803@evision.ag> References: <3D3BE1DD.3040803@evision.ag> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1096 Lines: 27 Marcin Dalecki writes: > Kill two inlines which are notwhere used and which don't make sense > in the case someone is not compiling devfs at all. Rejected. Linus, please don't apply this bogus patch. External patches and drivers rely on the inline stubs so that #ifdef CONFIG_DEVFS_FS isn't needed. Martin, why are you bothering with this kind of false cleanup? These inline stubs don't take up any space in the object files, so why bother? Also, given that the stubs were carefully added in the first place, it suggests that there is a good reason for their presence. Why didn't you stop and think it through before firing off a patch, or at least ask me if you couldn't see why? This "patch first, think/ask questions later" approach is disturbing. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/