Re: [PATCH] relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 02:55:45PM +0800, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 2:17 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 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:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> 
> Thanks for the vote. Let me seriously think of the possible use case
> here. If I find one, I think I would revert it as soon as possible.

Sure, I will be happy to help reviewing such a revert.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko