Re: [2.6 patch] mark virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt as __deprecated on i386

From: Adrian Bunk
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 21:44:56 EST

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 06:20:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

There are few areas in the kernel that spit that many warnings that you
might not see new ones .

The developers not noticing the warnings might often be the same
developers who send patches that don't compile...

> > 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 ;)

In the case of virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt there are stil many places in the
kernel using it, and several of them are well maintained.

IMHO the warnings are the best solution for getting a vast amount fixed,
and then it's time to think about the rest.

> > 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.

-Werror-implicit-function-declaration doesn't add new warnings, it turns
a specific kind of warnings that can indicate nasty runtime errors into
compile errors.



"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

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