[PATCH net-next 1/7] ethernet: Remove the Sun Cassini driver

[Anirudh Venkataramanan]

On 1/7/2023 4:25 AM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:00 AM Anirudh Venkataramanan
> <anirudh.venkataramanan at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> In a recent patch series that touched this driver [1], it was suggested
>> that this driver should be removed completely. git logs suggest that
>> there hasn't been any significant feature addition, improvement or fixes to
>> user-visible bugs in a while. A web search didn't indicate any recent
>> discussions or any evidence that there are users out there who care about
>> this driver. Thus, remove this driver.
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> checkpatch complains "WARNING: added, moved or deleted file(s), does
>> MAINTAINERS need updating?". The files being removed don't have their
>> own entries in the MAINTAINERS file, so there's nothing to remove.
>>
>> checkpatch also complains about the long lore link below.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/99629223-ac1b-0f82-50b8-ea307b3b0197@intel.com/T/#t
>>
>> Suggested-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon at kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Anirudh Venkataramanan <anirudh.venkataramanan at intel.com>
> 
> Do we drop/delete a working functionality by only taking in account
> git activity ?

No, but in some cases it's enough to at least start asking the "who uses 
this code? should we continue maintaining it?" type questions.

In the cover letter I did say this:

"The idea behind putting out this series is to either establish that 
these drivers are used and should be maintained, or remove them."

We have established that these drivers are indeed used, and thus 
shouldn't be removed.

> 
> What is a proper way to decline patch series (vs Acked-by) ?

There's no tag that I am aware of. I have seen people say "NACK" or 
"please don't do this" followed by an explanation of why the 
patch/series is a bad idea. For example, see the other responses to this 
series.

Ani