Re: [PATCH] console UTF-8 fixes

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> 
> We've arrived at another coding policy :)
> 
> There are two possible behaviors, each have pros and cons. HPA prefers one,
> while Jan and me would prefer the other. The difference is one function that
> contains a large table and an invocation of that function in a small if
> branch.
> 
> In my latest version of the patch I've put the function itself inside
> comments too. So it's not the real compiler, it's the preprocessor that
> omits this code for the default behavior. HPA, I hope you don't mind if the
> other reasonable behavior is there in the source, within comments. I think
> let's make the job easier for those who have a different opinion. Or is it a
> completely stupid idea?
> 

Not leaving dead code in the kernel is long-standing policy; it's 
nothing new.  We constantly remove #if 0'd code that the authors have 
left in.

	-hpa