Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/3/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> --- 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@xxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/