Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove dead termiox code - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove dead termiox code
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 14:57:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <X840u5K1Y2kIHnQR@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201207101904.GC2265@angband.pl>

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:19:04AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:10:16AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:51:07AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 08:22:41AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > > > > On 03. 12. 20, 3:03, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > > > > > Delete this dead code; but leave the definition of struct termiox in the
> > > > > > > > UAPI headers intact.
> [was snipped]
> > > > > > > I am thinking -- can/should we mark the structure as deprecated so that                                 
> > > > > > > userspace stops using it eventually?   
> 
> > > Note this ^^^^^. He is talking about _not_ touching the definition in the
> > > UAPI header. Does the rest below makes more sense now?
> > 
> > No, I'm still confused :)
> > 
> > We can't touch the UAPI definitions, but the fact that this api never
> > did anything still is ok as after this patch it continues to not do
> > anything.
> > 
> > I'm confused as to what you are proposing...
> 
> The UAPI definition can't be removed, but it would be nice to issue a
> compiler _warning_ if it's ever used.
> 
> Like eg. __attribute__ ((deprecated))

Don't add build warnings for no good reasons, that's not nice.  As the
feature just doesn't work, anyone who tries to use it will very quickly
realize that :)

thanks,

greg k-h