Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8 of 9] x86/mm: New domctl: Perform sharing audit

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 13.12.11 at 05:22, "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" <andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>> wrote:
>>   >>> On 09.12.11 at 21:22, Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Sharing audits are heavyweight, so instead of performing them inline,
>>> we make them callable via a domctl.
>>
>> As said before - there's again no consumer of this new code within the
>> series, and hence you're asking to add dead code.
> 
> Stands to reason that audit domctls are generally useful things. We
> already have p2m audit domctls with no consumer. And that's not the end of
> the list of things in the tree without a consumer.
> 
> I think your comments about dead code are a bit excessive. The only
> consumer in this tree of the sharing API is memshr. Have a look at how
> memshr is currently linked into blktap2. Maybe we should just submit one
> patch removing all of memshr and the Xen sharing code?

Seems like I should have more clear that my request went more in
the direction of you submitting the (assumed to be existing) consumer
code that you must have used for testing these.

But from a more abstract perspective - yes, dead code should be
removed (and shouldn't have been allowed in) without a clear path
towards a consumer. It's not a law of nature that software
components must only ever grow in size (and usually slow down
accordingly).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel