On 1/7/2023 4:25 AM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:00 AM Anirudh Venkataramanan
<anirudh.venkataramanan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a recent patch series that touched this driver [1], it was suggested
that this driver should be removed completely. git logs suggest that
there hasn't been any significant feature addition, improvement or fixes to
user-visible bugs in a while. A web search didn't indicate any recent
discussions or any evidence that there are users out there who care about
this driver. Thus, remove this driver.
Notes:
checkpatch complains "WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does
MAINTAINERS need updating?". The files being removed don't have their
own entries in the MAINTAINERS file, so there's nothing to remove.
checkpatch also complains about the long lore link below.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/99629223-ac1b-0f82-50b8-ea307b3b0197@xxxxxxxxx/T/#t
Suggested-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Anirudh Venkataramanan <anirudh.venkataramanan@xxxxxxxxx>
Do we drop/delete a working functionality by only taking in account
git activity ?
No, but in some cases it's enough to at least start asking the "who uses
this code? should we continue maintaining it?" type questions.
In the cover letter I did say this:
"The idea behind putting out this series is to either establish that
these drivers are used and should be maintained, or remove them."
We have established that these drivers are indeed used, and thus
shouldn't be removed.
What is a proper way to decline patch series (vs Acked-by) ?
There's no tag that I am aware of. I have seen people say "NACK" or
"please don't do this" followed by an explanation of why the
patch/series is a bad idea. For example, see the other responses to this
series.
Ani
