On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 2:17 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:14:56AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:12:56AM +0800, Jason Xing wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I noticed this patch "relay: Remove unused relay_late_setup_files" > > > appears in the mm branch already[1], which I totally missed. Sorry for > > > joining the party late. > > > > > > I have a different opinion on this. For me, I'm very cautious about > > > what those so-called legacy interfaces are and how they can work in > > > different cases and what the use case might be... There are still a > > > small number of out-of-tree users like me heavily relying on relayfs > > > mechanism. So my humble opinion is that if you want to remove > > > so-called dead code, probably clearly state why it cannot be used > > > anymore in the future. > > > > > > Dr. David, I appreciate your patch, but please do not simply do the > > > random cleanup work __here__. If you take a deep look at the relayfs, > > > you may find there are other interfaces/functions no one uses in the > > > kernel tree. > > > > > > I'm now checking this kind of patch in relayfs one by one to avoid > > > such a thing happening. I'm trying to maintain it as much as possible > > > since we internally use it in the networking area to output useful > > > information in the hot paths, a little bit like blktrace. BTW, relayfs > > > is really a wonderful one that helps kernel modules communicate with > > > userspace very efficiently. I'm trying to revive it if I can. > > > > Jason, with all of the respect, if you are interested in keeping things going > > on, please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS. It will makes the users of the > > legacy code, Andrew and others, who are doing maintainer's/reviewer's job, > > and you happy. > > > > Also note, we usually do not care about the out-of-tree users. The main Q here > > why are they out-of-tree for so long time? > > > > > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/commit/?h=mm-everything&id=46aa76118ee365c25911806e34d28fc2aa5ef997 > > With the above being said, I am +1 for the patch to stay. Feel free to send > a revert with a good justification of why it should stay. Note, out-of-tree > is not enough argument. Thanks for the vote. Let me seriously think of the possible use case here. If I find one, I think I would revert it as soon as possible. Thanks, Jason
