Re: linux-next requirements

From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wed Mar 03 2010 - 20:18:08 EST

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:35:43 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As a side note: We created, to have a tool which helps
> > us to alert developers about stuff which is deprecated and as a
> > byproduct the coding style rules. I think it's a useful tool in
> > general, just the outcome is an utter trainwreck:
> >
> > We have hordes of whitespace, spelling and codingstyle cleanup
> > maniacs, while the hard stuff of replacing deprecated interfaces like
> > semaphore based mutexes / completions, cleaning up the BKL horror,
> > etc. is left to a few already overworked people who care.
> >
> > What's even worse is it that developers of new code and the
> > maintainers who are merging it simply ignore its existance for
> > whatever reasons. I can accept the whitespace argument, but I have no
> > grasp why deprecation warnings are ignored at will.
> um, write checkpatch rules to detect new additions of deprecated features.
> I take patches.

Guess what ? There are rules already which warn about init_MUTEX,
init_MUTEX_locked for quite a while and that's why I'm ranting at both
developers and maintainers submitting resp. merging code containing
exactly that shit.

But yeah we do not have one for lock/unlock_kernel, will send one.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at