Re: linux-next requirements

[Ingo Molnar]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 01:35:43 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > As a side note: We created checkpatch.pl, to have a tool which helps
> > > us to alert developers about stuff which is deprecated and as a
> > > byproduct the coding style rules. I think it's a useful tool in
> > > general, just the outcome is an utter trainwreck:
> > > 
> > > We have hordes of whitespace, spelling and codingstyle cleanup
> > > maniacs, while the hard stuff of replacing deprecated interfaces like
> > > semaphore based mutexes / completions, cleaning up the BKL horror,
> > > etc. is left to a few already overworked people who care.
> > > 
> > > What's even worse is it that developers of new code and the
> > > maintainers who are merging it simply ignore its existance for
> > > whatever reasons. I can accept the whitespace argument, but I have no
> > > grasp why deprecation warnings are ignored at will.
> > 
> > um, write checkpatch rules to detect new additions of deprecated features.
> > 
> > I take patches.
> 
> Guess what ? There are rules already which warn about init_MUTEX,
> init_MUTEX_locked for quite a while and that's why I'm ranting at both
> developers and maintainers submitting resp. merging code containing
> exactly that shit.
> 
> But yeah we do not have one for lock/unlock_kernel, will send one.

That's a good idea i think.

We should probably also rename ->ioctl to ->ioctl_legacy and have 
->unlocked_ioctl as the primary thing for new drivers to use.

	Ingo
--
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/