Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

2016-01-21 Thread Shuah Khan 
On 01/20/2016 10:10 PM, Jεan Sacren wrote:
> From: David Miller 
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500
>>
>> From: Julia Lawall 
>> 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.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shua...@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978

Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

2016-01-21 Thread David Miller 
From: Jεan Sacren 
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:10:56 -0700

> From: David Miller 
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500
>>
>> From: Julia Lawall 
>> 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?

This is rediculous.

No, you cannot submit patches for new features now.

Yes, you will submit to me a patch to remove the unused code.

Am I being clear enough now?

Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

2016-01-21 Thread David Miller 
From: Shuah Khan 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:04:17 -0700

> On 01/20/2016 10:10 PM, Jεan Sacren wrote:
>> From: David Miller 
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500
>>>
>>> From: Julia Lawall 
>>> 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.

Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

2016-01-21 Thread Jεan Sacren 
From: David Miller 
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:45:20 -0800
> 
> Yes, you will submit to me a patch to remove the unused code.

I should have paraphrased it better:

"I have the patch ready and will submit it when net-next opens again."

Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

2016-01-20 Thread Jεan Sacren 
From: David Miller 
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:36:28 -0500
>
> From: Julia Lawall 
> 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?