[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fwd: struct inode size reduction.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:18:24PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > [I already submitted the patch throwing it out, but someone,
> > maybe it was Roman Zippel, complained that that was going
> > in the wrong direction. In the very long run that may be true
> > (or not), but for 2.6 I do not see the point of this dead code.]
> My main question here is whether that code hurts in any way? Does it
> prevent other cleanups? Sure this code needs more work to be really
> useful, but as long as it only wastes a bit of space, I'd prefer to keep
> it.

Yes, dead code always hurts.
In a global change - should this dead code also be updated?
To do what?


if (driver->flags & TTY_DRIVER_INSTALLED)
return 0;

- error = register_chrdev(driver->major, driver->name, &tty_fops);
+ error = register_chrdev_region(driver->major, driver->minor_start,
+ driver->num, driver->name, &tty_fops);
if (error < 0)
return error;
else if(driver->major == 0)
+int register_chrdev(unsigned int major, const char *name,
+ struct file_operations *fops)
+ return register_chrdev_region(major, 0, 256, name, fops);

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.093 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site