From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16E48CF for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (mail-lb0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1E0F201F5 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id u10so440534lbd.36 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:16:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: geert.uytterhoeven@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20140611224842.2a011256@gandalf.local.home> References: <20140610201236.GA21729@laptop.dumpdata.com> <53976840.40306@zytor.com> <20140611175433.GA10462@roeck-us.net> <5398E4A8.9080200@roeck-us.net> <20140611224842.2a011256@gandalf.local.home> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:16:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Steven Rostedt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Boris Ostrovsky , David Vrabel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Topic: Removal of code that is still in use by users but there is a better code. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:22:16 -0700 > Guenter Roeck wrote: >> I understand, but personally I don't have much problem with code as long >> as it compiles. I am more concerned with code that doesn't compile and >> no one cared for years. And once it stops compiling, more issues will be introduced into that area, which no one notices due to the first compile failure. > Matters what your definition of "doesn't compile" is. > > You may not have the right config option set to make it compile. > randconfig builds trigger failed compiles quite often. Is that code > worth removing? > > As most people test allyesconfig and allmodconfig quite a bit, I'm not > sure what code you are talking about. Basically everything that gets > enabled does compile. And once it compiles, it usually works! I have the impression we're getting good (read: having good review) at doing logical changes, i.e. when code is integrated, it works (almost always :-). The tricky parts these days are configuration issues, i.e. code that fails to build for certain configurations, due to various reasons (forgot to handle a case in another #ifdef branch, code inside vs. outside #ifdef, different indirect includes on different architectures, ...). Fortunately the latter can be caught using more CPU resources, in contrast with more reviewers for the former. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds