From: Shuah Khan <shua...@osg.samsung.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:04:17 -0700
> On 01/20/2016 10:10 PM, Jεan Sacren wrote: >> From: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> >> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500 >>> >>> From: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:54:20 +0100 (CET) >> >> [...] >> >>>> I just wondered. I was looking at dependencies between networking files. >>>> This one stands out because nothing is dependenton it, even the files it >>>> is compiled with, and it doesn't contain the usual functions, >>>> register_netdev, etc. >>> >>> Even with that explanation, this is a bogus situation. >>> >>> There are no in-tree callers of this code. It should be removed until there >>> are in-tree users. >>> >>> Nobody can figure out if the interface for this is done properly without >>> seeing >>> the call sites and how they work. It is therefore impossible to review this >>> code and judge it's design. >>> >>> If someone doesn't send me a removal patch, I will remove this code myself. >> >> I have the patch ready. >> >> Do you want me to submit it now during the merge window or wait till >> net-next opens up again? >> > > My second attempt to locate the author for a comment > on this before it gets removed. Maybe this code could > be fixed just in case it is important for some product > out there. > > I am cc'ing the original author in case he has any > comments. It never should have been added in the first place, I really don't care at all right now what it's used for. The simple fact is that it isn't used, and therefore must be removed now.
