trivial patch for 2.4.20-pre1 8139too.c driver (fwd)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
My i ask what the sense is to not remove the dead code if
all we are trying to do is stablize the 2.4x kernel series and not add extra code or change around the drivers for perticular hardware. The code is not used anymore so why keep it in the 2.4x series. The code can stay in the 2.5x series no problem because there we can change drivers rewrite hardware protocalls and tthings like that.
Quoted 7 lines · Marcelo Tosatti
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:15:21 +0000
From: Nathaniel Russell <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [PATCH] trivial patch for 2.4.20-pre18139too.c
driver
Quoted 2 lines
This patch removes unneeded code for the Realtek driver
this patch does not
Quoted 1 line
harm the performance of the driver at all it just removes
dead code
Quoted 5 lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -urN linux-2.4/drivers/net/8139too.c.tmp
linux/drivers/net/8139too.c
Quoted 1 line
--- linux-2.4/drivers/net/8139too.c.tmp Mon Aug 5
18:06:03 2002
Review line 216
Quoted 9 lines
+++ linux/drivers/net/8139.c Tue Aug 6 00:09:20 2002
(quoted diff) +0
-1@@ -211,7 +211,6 @@ RTL8139 = 0, RTL8139_CB, SMC1211TX, - /*MPX5030,*/ DELTA8139, ADDTRON8139, DFE538TX,
[...]
Please -do not- apply this patch. This "dead code" exists
for comment purposes, and also is a placeholder for future, better support for this chip.
Jeff
Quoted 7 lines · Nathaniel
My i ask what the sense is to not remove the dead code if
all we are trying to do is stablize the 2.4x kernel series and not add extra code or change around the drivers for perticular hardware. The code is not used anymore so why keep it in the 2.4x series. The code can stay in the 2.5x series no problem because there we can change drivers rewrite hardware protocalls and tthings like that.
...because I maintain the driver, and want to keep that code around as a note to myself.
Jeff
O K Then
Quoted 2 lines · Nathaniel
My i ask what the sense is to not remove the dead code if all we are trying to do is stablize the 2.4x kernel
series
Quoted 5 lines
and not add extra code or change around the drivers for perticular hardware. The code is not used anymore so why keep it in the 2.4x series. The code can stay in the 2.5x series no problem because there we can change drivers rewrite hardware protocalls and tthings like that.
...because I maintain the driver, and want to keep that
code around as a note to myself.
Jeff