On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:15:11PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/26/18 8:35 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > The second observation I'll make is that if someone is proposing a > > cleanup patch, it's unfair to dump on the person proposing the cleanup > > patch the (non-trivial) effort to drop a driver/file system/subsystem. > > Hi Ted, > > Maybe I was not clear enough. It never was my intention to suggest that Nick > or Nathan should remove the OSD code. This is something I'm willing to do > myself. BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to explain me why the patch at > the start of this thread was submitted by people who never have used the > libosd driver and who do not have any plans to use it ever. > Hi Bart, We've been cleaning up Clang warnings seen in various configurations. In this case, I believe this warning shows up in an arm64 allyesconfig build (would probably show up in an x86_64 one too but I'm not going to test right now). More info: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/58 Cheers, Nathan > > If the maintainer wants to drop a driver/file system, that should be > > the maintainer's responsibiltiy; not someone proposing a > > cleanup/maintenance patch. > > I think anyone who makes tree-wide changes has the freedom to suggest to > remove a driver. Having to modify drivers that are no longer maintained when > doing tree-wide changes can be a real pain. > > Additionally, you may have missed earlier discussions on the linux-scsi > mailing list about this driver. The first time it was suggested to remove > this driver was several years ago. The outcome of a discussion of a few > weeks ago is that there is agreement about the removal of this driver. See > also the following messages: > * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123738.html > * https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-scsi/msg123742.html > > Bart.
