Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/scsi/nsp32.c: remove kernel 2.4 code

Adrian Bunk
2007-04-27T00:13:16Z

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 07:59:57PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > This patch removes kernel 2.4 code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > This patch has been sent on:
> > - 26 Mar 2007
> >
> > drivers/scsi/nsp32.c | 109 +++++--------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.21-rc4-mm1/drivers/scsi/nsp32.c.old 2007-03-25 20:27:34.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc4-mm1/drivers/scsi/nsp32.c 2007-03-25 20:31:59.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -49,10 +49,6 @@
> > #include <scsi/scsi_host.h>
> > #include <scsi/scsi_ioctl.h>
> >
> > -#if (LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,0))
> > -# include <linux/blk.h>
> > -#endif
> > -
>
> i'm curious about the rules for removing code like this. in the case
> of drivers, isn't it possible that some driver source could be
> relevant for both the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel source tree, and simply uses
> that kind of preprocessor check to make sure it's being compiled
> appropriately?

That's what it was for.

> or are you doing something more sophisticated than simply checking the
> kernel version being tested?

No.

The point is:

It seems this driver was once maintained for both 2.4 and 2.6 in one
file.

As long as this is done, such version checks are OK.

But if a driver is no longer actually maintained for both kernels these
checks become useless (and there quickly arised unconditional 2.6-only
code in such a driver) and can be removed.

> rday

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed