Re: question about samsung/sxgbe/sxgbe_xpcs.c

[David Miller]

From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:04:17 -0700

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