Re: [PATCH] delete seven tty headers

[Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>]

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 13:00 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 10:56 AM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > --- a/include/linux/Kbuild
> > +++ b/include/linux/Kbuild
> > @@ -84,7 +84,6 @@ header-y += capability.h
> >  header-y += capi.h
> >  header-y += cciss_defs.h
> >  header-y += cciss_ioctl.h
> > -header-y += cdk.h
> >  header-y += cdrom.h
> >  header-y += cgroupstats.h
> >  header-y += chio.h
> > @@ -93,7 +92,6 @@ header-y += cn_proc.h
> >  header-y += coda.h
> >  header-y += coda_psdev.h
> >  header-y += coff.h
> > -header-y += comstats.h
> >  header-y += connector.h
> >  header-y += const.h
> >  header-y += cramfs_fs.h
> 
> NACK for these two files. I rather prefer going through the
> deprecate-wait_years-delete path (removal of __KERNEL__ parts, if there
> are any, is OK). 

No, none of these headers have __KERNEL__ parts.

> I doubt there are any users at all, but we still should
> gave them a chance to fix their builds (remove those #include's and
> potentially used defined/structs) and not introduce a userspace build
> breakage.

I guess I'm being naive here, but will userspace still end up with
something usable on older kernels (ie, kernels that still used the
various things provided by these headers)? And, even then, are there
still stable kernels that could possibly have working drivers related to
these two headers?

If so I'm fine with providing these headers some additional time. But
then we should add a "#warning# to these two headers and add a related
entry to Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt). 

> The rest is OK to be removed.

Thanks,


Paul Bolle