On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:48:04AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:48:04AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:37:57AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > The code isn't dead, it's temporarily broken. I spoke with Darrick about > > > removing it, but by doing that, later, 'reverting' the patch that removed the > > > broken code, will break the git history (specifically for git blame), and I > > > didn't want to give Darrick extra work by needing to re-add back all this code > > > later when he come back to work on this. > > > Anyway, just an attempt to quiet built test warning alerts :) > > > I'm totally fine ^R'ing these emails :) > > > > #if 0 is a realy bad thing. I'd much prefer to remvoe it and re-added > > it when needed. But even if Darrick insists on just disabling it, you > > need to add a comment explaining what is going on, because otherwise > > people will just trip over the complete undocumented #if 0 with a > > completely meaningless commit message in git-blame. That's how people > > dealt with code in the early 90s and not now. > > You are right, I should have added at least some comment on that, I'll wait for > Darrick to wake up and see if we deal with it somehow or just leave it as-is. *Someone* please just review the fixes for fscounters.c that I put on the list two weeks ago. The first two patches of the patchset are sufficient to fix this problem. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/168506061483.3732954.5178462816967376906.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/ --D
