Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: Remove commented out code

[Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@linux.dev>]

Hi Jakub,

> On 13. Feb 2025, at 04:57, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:33:57 +0100 Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:
>>>> I don't think we want to remove that piece of code, please refer
>>>> to the discussion under the link:
>>>> 
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1681917361.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com/  
>>> 
>>> Hm, the commit message (dbda0fba7a14) says payload was deleted because
>>> "the member is not even used anywhere," but it was just commented out.
>>> In the cover letter it then explains that "deleted" actually means
>>> "commented out."
>>> 
>>> However, I can't follow the reasoning in the cover letter either:
>>> 
>>> "Note that instead of completely deleting it, we just leave it as a
>>> comment in the struct, signalling to the reader that we do expect
>>> such variable parameters over there, as Marcelo suggested."
>>> 
>>> Where do I find Marcelo's suggestion and the "variable parameters over
>>> there?"
>>> 
>> 
>> That's good question, I can't find the Marcelo suggestion that author
>> mention. It's hard to find without links to previous series or
>> discussion :/
>> 
>> I guess it should be also commented by maintainers, I see that in the
>> Xin's thread Kuba also commented change with commenting out instead
>> of removing code. Let's wait
> 
> In the linked thread the point was to document what struct will be next
> in memory. Here we'd be leaving an array of u8s which isn't very
> informative. I see there's precedent in this file, but I vote we just
> delete the line.

This patch deletes the line and I'm wondering why the "cr"?

Were you referring to this patch maybe?
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250114215439.916207-3-thorsten.blum@linux.dev/

Should both payload fields just be deleted since they're not used?

Thanks,
Thorsten