On 04/04/2018 02:29 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > 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?
That would be OK since -EINVAL or something similar is being returned. -- ~Randy