linux-kernel - Re: pcmcia ioctl removal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705010514300.9162@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 1 May 2007 05:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-pcmcia@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: pcmcia ioctl removal

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> >  pcmcia-delete-obsolete-pcmcia_ioctl-feature.patch
>
> ...
>
> > Dominik is busy.  Will probably re-review and send these direct to Linus.
>
> The patch above is the removal of cardmgr support.  While I'd love
> to see this cruft gone it definitively needs maintainer judgement on
> whether they time has come that no one relies on cardmgr anymore.

since i was the one who submitted the original patch to remove that
stuff, let me make an observation.

when i submitted a patch to remove, for instance, the traffic shaper
since it's clearly obsolete, i was told -- in no uncertain terms --
that that couldn't be done since there had been no warning about its
impending removal.

fair enough, i can accept that.

on the other hand, the features removal file contains the following:

...
What:   PCMCIA control ioctl (needed for pcmcia-cs [cardmgr, cardctl])
When:   November 2005
...

in other words, the PCMCIA ioctl feature *has* been listed as obsolete
for quite some time, and is already a *year and a half* overdue for
removal.

in short, it's annoying to take the position that stuff can't be
deleted without warning, then turn around and be reluctant to remove
stuff for which *more than ample warning* has already been given.
doing that just makes a joke of the features removal file, and makes
you wonder what its purpose is in the first place.

a little consistency would be nice here, don't you think?

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/