[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 00:29:06 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: Deprecate non PR_SET_MM_MAP operations
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:53:08PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > At first this was plain warning without code removal but I've
> > been advised that dropping it completely may be a better idea
> > which I agree https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/4/31 Or you mean the
> > warning message itsef? We aready have similars, for example
> > in kernel/auditfilter.c
>
> The traditional way (eons ago) to deprecate something was to add a
> printk() and then delete the feature a few years later.
> Still, I have no objection to dropping that prctl.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was objecting to the "language", i.e., to the
> word "deprecated." Deprecated means frowned on, advised against, etc.
> It does not mean "deleted."
True. I remember this rule of deprecation. But when I dropped the
code I though which message to put here (or should I put it at
all) and since "deprecated" was the first word came into mind
I decided to grep sources, the result you see by its own :)
>
> > printk(KERN_ERR "AUDIT_POSSIBLE is deprecated\n");
>
> Yeah, that one's wrong also. :)
So, maybe just get rid of any warning message at all?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists