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?

Reply via email to