Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002

BUG=357586, 630141
Committed: https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739}

[hayato, 2016-07-26 07:38:08]

The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-26 07:38:28]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[hayato, 2016-07-26 07:41:29]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002

BUG=357586,630141
==========

[hayato, 2016-07-26 07:41:29]

hayato@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yoav@yoav.ws

[hayato, 2016-07-26 07:43:09]

yoav@, could you check whether we can remove this?

My concern is whether we can remove "frame->document()" or not from the
condition because it might change the behavior.

[Yoav Weiss, 2016-07-26 08:13:13]

On 2016/07/26 07:43:09, hayato wrote:
> yoav@, could you check whether we can remove this?
> 
> My concern is whether we can remove "frame->document()" or not from the
> condition because it might change the behavior.

Looks like we can definitely remove the styleForDocument() call.
My understanding is that the case where frame->document() is null should not
happen, since we're in a rel=style case, so loadingFrame() returns
m_owner->document().frame(), so the frame should have a document here. Therefore
I don't think removing the frame->document() condition entirely would change the
behavior significantly.

Can you think of a scenario where that is the case?

[hayato, 2016-07-26 08:29:16]

Thanks. I appreciate that. I can not think of.
Now I do not have a concern. :)

[Yoav Weiss, 2016-07-26 08:36:09]

On 2016/07/26 08:29:16, hayato wrote:
> Thanks. I appreciate that. I can not think of.
> Now I do not have a concern. :)

Awesome. LGTM!

Thanks for cleaning up leftovers from my old patches! :D

[hayato, 2016-07-26 08:39:27]

The CQ bit was unchecked by hayato@chromium.org

[hayato, 2016-07-26 08:39:30]

The CQ bit was checked by hayato@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-26 08:39:44]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-26 08:56:39]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-26 08:58:15]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002

BUG=357586,630141
==========

to

==========
Remove unused code from HTMLLinkElement

This should be removed in https://codereview.chromium.org/242883002

BUG=357586,630141

Committed: https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-26 08:58:16]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/10f38919e18ed8fa5b4fa96834a024cfdd9a0667
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#407739}