It is dead code, but I don't think putting it in a comment makes it better. In general, commented out code should be avoided because it is not checked by the compiler. In addition, we might want to implement driver unloading in the near future, and will have to add the code back then (including the "if" because failures to create the monitor are not critical).
2016-10-28 3:00 GMT+02:00 Aric Stewart aric@codeweavers.com:
Coverity 1373717
Signed-off-by: Aric Stewart aric@codeweavers.com
dlls/winebus.sys/bus_udev.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
On 10/28/16 4:41 AM, Sebastian Lackner wrote:
It is dead code, but I don't think putting it in a comment makes it better. In general, commented out code should be avoided because it is not checked by the compiler. In addition, we might want to implement driver unloading in the near future, and will have to add the code back then (including the "if" because failures to create the monitor are not critical).
I am not sure what you are advocating for here. Leaving it as it is hoping that driver unloading is implemented soon? If so then I feel like I should write a full and proper unload function.
Fully removing the code without comment bugs me because then we are loosing knowledge. In 1 month, 6 months, years when driver unloading is implemented the need to release the monitor will have to be remember/rediscovered.
-aric
2016-10-28 3:00 GMT+02:00 Aric Stewart aric@codeweavers.com:
Coverity 1373717
Signed-off-by: Aric Stewart aric@codeweavers.com
dlls/winebus.sys/bus_udev.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
-
Aric Stewart -
Sebastian Lackner