Re: [2.6 patch] mark virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt as __deprecated oni386

[Andrew Morton]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:50:15PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt are long deprecated, mark them as __deprecated 
> > > on i386.
> > > 
> > 
> > Problem is, nobody's fixing these things.  There's no point in adding spam
> > to the kernel build unless it actually gets us some action, and I haven't
> > seen any evidence that it does.
> > 
> > Stick it under CONFIG_I_AM_A_DEVELOPER_WHO_HAS_TIME_TO_FIX_STUFF.
> 
> I'm used to the fact that every single BROKEN_ON_SMP driver generates 
> tons of such warnings that I don't see why these warnings should be any 
> bad...

I frequently (daily) get patches which spit new warnings.  Sometimes
(~weekly) those warnings indicate real bugs in the patch.

I believe that the main reason for this is that the developers simply don't
notice the new warning amongst all the noise.

> If you dislike the warnings, you could move the whole __deprecated und a 
> config option.
> 
> In the case of virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt I had the hope that e.g. the ATM 
> drivers that seem to have an active maintainer might get fixed.

That would be good - but perhaps a better approach would be to send pointed
emails to the maintainer.  Or to merge lameo patches to remove
virt_to_bus() so he has to fix it for real ;)

> But I'm not religious regarding this issue as long as you accept my 
> -Werror-implicit-function-declaration patch...

Problem is, I'm the sucker who takes the brunt of that change.  It'd be
best to fix up the warnings _before_ adding the make-it-break patch.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/