Re: [2.6 patch] fs/qnx4/bitmap.c: #if 0 qnx4_new_block()

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:28:31PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 12/3/05, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > qnx4_new_block() is neither implemented nor used.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c.old   2005-12-03 11:32:46.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3-mm1/fs/qnx4/bitmap.c       2005-12-03 11:33:07.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -23,10 +23,12 @@
> >  #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
> >  #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >
> > +#if 0
> >  int qnx4_new_block(struct super_block *sb)
> >  {
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > +#endif  /*  0  */
> >
> >  static void count_bits(register const char *bmPart, register int size,
> >                        int *const tf)
> >
> 
> Adrian,
> You submit a lot of nice patches, but your "#if 0" patches have always
> puzzled me. Why is it that you prefer to use #if 0 to remove code
> rather than simply delete it?

I started with patches simply deleting the code, but since too often 
people complained "we might need this code at some time in the future", 
I've switched to using the #if 0's...

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/