pcmcia ioctl removal

Konstantin Münning konstantin at muenning.com
Tue May 1 08:06:53 EDT 2007

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:12:36PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On May 1 2007 05:16, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> on the other hand, the features removal file contains the following:
>>> ...
>>> What:   PCMCIA control ioctl (needed for pcmcia-cs [cardmgr, cardctl])
>>> When:   November 2005
>>> ...
>>> in other words, the PCMCIA ioctl feature *has* been listed as obsolete
>>> for quite some time, and is already a *year and a half* overdue for
>>> removal.
>>> in short, it's annoying to take the position that stuff can't be
>>> deleted without warning, then turn around and be reluctant to remove
>>> stuff for which *more than ample warning* has already been given.
>>> doing that just makes a joke of the features removal file, and makes
>>> you wonder what its purpose is in the first place.
>>> a little consistency would be nice here, don't you think?
>> I think this could raise their attention...
>> init/Makefile
>> obj-y += obsolete.o
>> init/obsolete.c:
>> static __init int obsolete_init(void)
>> {
>> 	printk("\e[1;31m""
>> The following stuff is gonna get removed \e[5;37m SOON: \e[0m
>> 	- cardmgr
>> 	- foobar
>> 	- bweebol
>> ");
>> 	schedule_timeout(3 * HZ);
>> 	return;
>> }
>> static __exit void obsolete_exit(void) {}
> There's something I like here : the fact that all features are centralized
> and not hidden in the noise. Clearly we need some standard inside the kernel
> to manage obsolete code as well as we currently do by hand.
> Willy

What about something like the tainted flag which status can be displayed
 easily? And even better when a list of the used obsolete features can
be displayed as well on request? This way you don't need to search the
logs. A standardized obsolete function like the one above could do all
the job.

Just my 2 cents.
Konstantin Münning

More information about the linux-pcmcia mailing list