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?