Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:46:28 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block() |
| |
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:28:31PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > 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?
I started with patches simply deleting the code, but since too often people complained "we might need this code at some time in the future", I've switched to using the #if 0's...
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |