On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:34:16PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:31:50PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > > [Please don't top-post.] > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:23:46PM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote: > > > Okay with moving the relevant functions to a new translation unit and > > > squashing it out in the Makefile > > > > No, you don't need to do that either. Mark pipe_to_null and > > splice_write_null as __maybe_unused, then wrap the initialization of > > .splice_write = splice_write_null to make it .splice_write = > > splice_p(splice_write_null). That will avoid adding a single ifdef. > > Again, ick, no. You aren't saving anything "real" at all, just take out > the splice core code, leave the file pointer alone, and never do that > horrid "splice_p" stuff, ick ick ick.
Without doing the splice_p change (which should add zero lines of code, total diffstat of -3+3 in this case, just a couple of __maybe_unused tokens and a splice_p() in the initializer), the actual splice implementations for filesystems and drivers won't get thrown away. I certainly agree that #ifdefs for those would be painful and not worth it. However, what problem would the proposed __maybe_unused / splice_p cause? On the other hand, I can *definitely* understand not bothering with changing filesystems that nobody will use on a space-constrained system (e.g. cluster filesystems); the patch series could likely be narrowed to just a half-dozen likely filesystems and drivers, all of which could be done separately from the initial series removing the core splice code. Would that be more appealing? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
