On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There are no in kernel consumers for DMA_SG op. Removing operation, > dead code, and test code in dmatest. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Gary Hook <gary.hook@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Kedareswara rao Appana <appana.durga.rao@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Li Yang <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxxxxx> It seems to be too much code to carry on without any active in-kernel users, so: Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > Even if it is used by somebody, the code is out of tree and thus > unsupported. Unless they upstream their code and utilize DMA_SG, the > burden is on them to maintain whatever support they need. Linux kernel > does not maintain dead code. This is no "hard" rule, we use common sense. If we see a compelling argument to carry some code (like it is infrastructure for WIP stuff) we do listen to reason. But yeah, dead code is pointless. > I have quite a bit of "extra" code in > ioatdma that would make my life easier if it's upstream and used by > third parties. However I can't because upstream does not take code with > no in kernel consumer. So I continue to support them out of tree. TBH I think we carry quite a bit of such code it'd just that the process of acceptance is far from perfect so there is no gatekeeper in many cases. > The > DMA_SG code really shouldn't have been accepted into the kernel in the > first place. As Ira explained this code did have in-kernel users for a while. Actually the sequence will be: - DMA_SG was accepted - Kernel internal user was added - Kernel internal user was removed - DMA_SG was removed Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
