lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][0/4] let's kill verify_area
Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > verify_area() if just a wrapper for access_ok() (or similar function or
> > > dummy function) for all arch's.
> >
> > This sounds more like "let's kill Andrew". I count 489 instances in the
> > tree. Please don't expect this activity to take top priority ;)
> >
> Heh, right, there's an aspect I hadn't really considered.
> I'm not expecting top priority, not at all. This is nowhere near being
> anything important, just something that should happen eventually - so I
> thought, why not just deprecate it now and let it be cleaned up over time
> (and I'll do my share, don't worry :)
>
> Accept the patch if you think it makes sense, drop it if you think it does
> not (or should wait).

The way to do this is to fix up the callers first, in just ten or so
patches. Then mark the function deprecated when most of the conversion is
done.

If we deprecate the functions first then 10000 people send small fixes via
various snaky routes and it's really hard to coordinate the overlapping
fixes. The s/MODULE_PARM/module_param/ stuff did that, because we made it
warn first, then I held the big sweep patch off for 2.6.11.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans