Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: remove '#if 0' code blocks

[Joshua Crofts]

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 01:47:35 +0900
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 1:49 PM Joshua Crofts wrote:
> >
> > There are two instances of '#if 0' code blocks that are dead code.
> > Remove these code blocks.
> >
> > Additionally, remove unnecessary brackets around a single-statement
> > if per checkpatch rules.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Crofts <joshua.crofts1@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Stumbled upon these blocks when grepping the kernel for #if 0. Not sure
> > if they are actually used for debugging; if so, I have no issues with
> > the patch being dropped.
> >
> > Thanks!  
> 
> Joshua Crofts, thank you for proposing this patch.
> 
> I agree that it is appropriate to remove the dead code in both locations.
> 
> These sections are not for debugging purposes; rather, they both
> relate to features that were never implemented.
> 
> Regarding the ACL-related dead code, it can be properly implemented
> when the feature is actually added; therefore, removing it is fine
> (and indeed preferable, as it reduces the tree-wide maintenance burden
> in the interim).
> 
> The dead code related to mount counts stems from a legacy feature
> designed for periodic full checks upon mounting.
> However, mandating a heavy, full-filesystem check simply because a
> certain number of mounts has been reached is outdated; in an era where
> large-capacity storage is the norm, such a process compromises
> availability.
> While fsck itself remains necessary, periodic health checks should be
> handled via alternative online methods.
> 
> I have just one point regarding the ACL dead code removal: in
> nilfs_new_inode() within "inode.c", there are lines that are merely
> commented out rather than being enclosed in "#if 0" (shown below).
> 
>         /* ii->i_file_acl = 0; */
>         /* ii->i_dir_acl = 0; */
> 
> Could you please revise your patch to remove these lines as well?
> 
> Once you have made these changes, I will accept the patch.
> 

Hi Ryusuke,

Thanks for the explanation! 

I'll implement the change you proposed in v2.

-- 
Kind regards,
Joshua Crofts