From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBDD63D984; Mon, 12 May 2025 06:17:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747030634; cv=none; b=BLcoHDZZFuAM2VsOSqpfXB+NXI8ag/CLNKho2odnuDIf41FnvbvFhiI4eHXxp4hNRqx+XTckKaWrkRROo+lTAurRRHmhPM/nN7lMyKarRn/S1Goy2ipKWXU7Fnna+7VY0VS/BOp9ppgfvgQ2Yagl0tuuDny+WHTYaKADuVZYnhU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747030634; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VzZDG00X1ihjnruuvzKH8dj0DPVIaM431wggNiUlxKM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cLqTnfkuTW3VTeyYn8nVCQfInLD4i8X8FtF3W4TiBJNRoe75C8t7o9M08CYykiEypQUSBTAmoMa+ADYJ4qVV2l9uVHyIqWUDRcmCq949AAuP6WidSbSlqI+c7Sn8iMUpv+oy+yWUXXukU7iMAUQHeV+2cYhs6V9miSIiBrCagR8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=W6grNhm1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="W6grNhm1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1747030633; x=1778566633; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=VzZDG00X1ihjnruuvzKH8dj0DPVIaM431wggNiUlxKM=; b=W6grNhm1D1Xm0iGGnnO8JvEQ5HH1RIuJIARPgOgIsDzWgNyqxP35tbgf irrUmOkr6yDciJyVr9CGUFksaWXVVvX3ZanSBLwNYIlkwNkCahTUZbTYa tyxzrFreCbQxccGX3fSWnCY4EnNLVQHEVNup8VtoKamIftw4dUONfm+Su WYYZS8CoVzwpm1tbQTYjLrKsPMoo7OFP9E0m0LtWcw7NwwGp+XcT8bx2s 9U9VkF4HjY8/GXMcFPyBa/UIzE/BdHi5rTqFa6sM2W60yCJyi4gGhxGPR VWhhWPrPyQSE1iHHVCr+fb7Un/613dsmaSZemba+YYXx8/mTqgqjRrD61 w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xm8nmsZmRfSWFrICxysOSg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: V+Yi6BM2Q0e3Eeqv96tvgg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11430"; a="48059812" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,281,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="48059812" Received: from fmviesa010.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.150]) by fmvoesa112.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2025 23:17:11 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 5KydAV8kRPGJ3uXCR98K1w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ivZgECalSYGUJWx9JMXrCQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,281,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="137742906" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.52]) by fmviesa010.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2025 23:17:09 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uEMTJ-00000000pPc-47Zy; Mon, 12 May 2025 09:17:05 +0300 Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 09:17:05 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jason Xing Cc: Andrew Morton , corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux@treblig.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:14:56AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:12:56AM +0800, Jason Xing wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I noticed this patch "relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files" > > appears in the mm branch already[1], which I totally missed. Sorry for > > joining the party late. > > > > I have a different opinion on this. For me, I'm very cautious about > > what those so-called legacy interfaces are and how they can work in > > different cases and what the use case might be... There are still a > > small number of out-of-tree users like me heavily relying on relayfs > > mechanism. So my humble opinion is that if you want to remove > > so-called dead code, probably clearly state why it cannot be used > > anymore in the future. > > > > Dr. David, I appreciate your patch, but please do not simply do the > > random cleanup work __here__. If you take a deep look at the relayfs, > > you may find there are other interfaces/functions no one uses in the > > kernel tree. > > > > I'm now checking this kind of patch in relayfs one by one to avoid > > such a thing happening. I'm trying to maintain it as much as possible > > since we internally use it in the networking area to output useful > > information in the hot paths, a little bit like blktrace. BTW, relayfs > > is really a wonderful one that helps kernel modules communicate with > > userspace very efficiently. I'm trying to revive it if I can. > > Jason, with all of the respect, if you are interested in keeping things going > on, please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS. It will makes the users of the > legacy code, Andrew and others, who are doing maintainer's/reviewer's job, > and you happy. > > Also note, we usually do not care about the out-of-tree users. The main Q here > why are they out-of-tree for so long time? > > > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything&id=46aa76118ee365c25911806e34d28fc2aa5ef997 With the above being said, I am +1 for the patch to stay. Feel free to send a revert with a good justification of why it should stay. Note, out-of-tree is not enough argument. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko