On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants
> of old APIs that want removing.
>
> However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
> (usually ancient, bitrotten) code in
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Sigh. Can't we just fix the dud code? Or mark it BROKEN and see what
> happens?
I think removing __deprecated is the better option.
Quite frankly, some people add "__deprecated" *way* too eagerly.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:06:13AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants of
> old APIs that want removing.
>
> However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
> (usually ancient, bitrotten) code in question is either
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants of
old APIs that want removing.
However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
(usually ancient, bitr
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:06:13 -0400 (EDT) Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants of
> old APIs that want removing.
>
> However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
> (usually ancient, bitrotten) code in
The __deprecated marker is quite useful in highlighting the remnants of
old APIs that want removing.
However, it is quite normal for one or more years to pass, before the
(usually ancient, bitrotten) code in question is either updated or
deleted.
Thus, like __must_check, add a Kconfig option that
6 matches
Mail list logo