linux-kernel - Re: "obsolete" versus "deprecated", and a new config option?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200701172154.l0HLs3BM021024@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:54:03 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "obsolete" versus "deprecated", and a new config option?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:51:27 EST, "Robert P. J. Day" said:
>
>   in any event, what about introducing a new config variable,
> OBSOLETE, under "Code maturity level options"?  this would seem to be
> a quick and dirty way to prune anything that is *supposed* to be
> obsolete from the build, to make sure you're not picking up dead code
> by accident.
> 
>   i think it would be useful to be able to make that kind of
> distinction since, as the devfs writer pointed out above, the point of
> labelling something "obsolete" is not to *discourage* someone from
> using a feature, it's to imply that they *shouldn't* be using that
> feature.  period.  which suggests there should be an easy, one-step
> way to enforce that absolutely in a build.

How much of the 'OBSOLETE' code should just be labelled 'BROKEN' instead?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped