Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:28:31 +0100 | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block() |
| |
On 12/3/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used. > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> > > --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old 2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100 > +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c 2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100 > @@ -23,10 +23,12 @@ > #include <linux/buffer_head.h> > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > +#if 0 > int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb) > { > return 0; > } > +#endif /* 0 */ > > static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size, > int *const tf) >
Adrian, You submit a lot of nice patches, but your "#if 0" patches have always puzzled me. Why is it that you prefer to use #if 0 to remove code rather than simply delete it?
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |