Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:08:24 +0100 | From | Andries Brouwer <> | Subject | Re: Fwd: struct inode size reduction. |
| |
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 11:18:24PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > > [I already submitted the patch throwing it out, but someone, > > maybe it was Roman Zippel, complained that that was going > > in the wrong direction. In the very long run that may be true > > (or not), but for 2.6 I do not see the point of this dead code.] > > My main question here is whether that code hurts in any way? Does it > prevent other cleanups? Sure this code needs more work to be really > useful, but as long as it only wastes a bit of space, I'd prefer to keep > it.
Yes, dead code always hurts. In a global change - should this dead code also be updated? To do what?
Andries
===== if (driver->flags & TTY_DRIVER_INSTALLED) return 0; - error = register_chrdev(driver->major, driver->name, &tty_fops); + error = register_chrdev_region(driver->major, driver->minor_start, + driver->num, driver->name, &tty_fops); if (error < 0) return error; else if(driver->major == 0) ===== +int register_chrdev(unsigned int major, const char *name, + struct file_operations *fops) +{ + return register_chrdev_region(major, 0, 256, name, fops); +} =====
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |