From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from oproxy19-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([70.40.200.33]:47055 "HELO oproxy19-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755677AbaAFQv2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:51:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:47:16 -0800 From: Jesse Barnes To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Stephen Hemminger , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Myron Stowe Subject: Re: [PATCH pci-next 2/2] pci: remove dead code Message-ID: <20140106084716.068edc9f@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <20131227132530.5c02d9d8@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <20131227132710.7190647c@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:12:52 -0700 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > [+cc Jesse, Myron] > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: > > > > My philosophy is unused code is dead code. > > And dead code is subject to bit rot and is likely source of bugs. > > Use it or lose it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > This removes pci_enable_ido(), pci_enable_obff(), pci_enable_ltr(), > etc., which I think you added, Jesse. In principle I like the idea of > removing code that isn't being used. Of course, these might be used > by out-of-tree drivers, but I don't think we should go *too* far out > of our way to support them. > > Anybody have any objections to removing them? Obviously they'll still > be in the git history, so it would be trivial to resurrect them. No objections. If driver folks haven't yet found a use for them (and/or hw is scarce) there's no reason to keep these. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center