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

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 21:25:13 EST

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.
> >
> 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
Please read the FAQ at