Re: [PATCH] Permit silencing of __deprecated warnings.

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>
> > The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants of
> > old APIs that want removing.
> >
> > However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
> > (usually ancient, bitrotten) code in question is either updated or
> > deleted.
> >
> > Thus, like __must_check, add a Kconfig option that permits the silencing
> > of this compiler warning.
> >
> > This change mimics the ifdef-ery and Kconfig defaults of MUST_CHECK as
> > closely as possible.
>
> Sigh.  Can't we just fix the dud code?  Or mark it BROKEN and see what
> happens?

__deprecated has spread to just about every API that people don't 
consider fresh and up-to-date.

Like I noted in the patch description, rewriting grotty ISA/MCA/etc. 
probe code is a thankless, boring task that few are crazy enough to 
attempt :)

As you can see from the patch flood recently I /have/ been working 
through the dud code, but it will still take years.  The changes 
required for each are on average ~200 LOC changed, if not more.

But regardless...  I don't see any reason to force every kernel build to 
remind us of grotty drivers.  Where's the benefit?  Everybody knows they 
are grotty.

Like __must_check this option defaults to the current state of things -- 
warnings -- so you have to take an extra step to turn them off.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/