On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:00:50AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > I see you did this already in 4f464a7b54a (Revert "Merge branch > 'jk/unused-annotation' into next", 2022-08-30), per [1] and [2] you & > Jeff seemed to agree on my approach in [3] as a way forward. > > The ab/unused-annotation in "seen" (not in this WC E-Mail) is a rebased > version of 1/2 of that series. Without the 2/2 [4] it won't catch the > accidental use of parameters. > > Were you planning on picking that up, or would you like it submitted > separately? I know there were reservations about (ab)using "deprecated" > for this, but per the rationale in [4] and Jeff's [2] it seemed like > there was consensus to go that route. Yeah, I think we should use the deprecated attribute. Since the original has been reverted, I think the next step would be for me to fix up the patches to use that approach from the start, and re-submit. I was dragging my feet a little hoping that we might get some coccinelle parsing miracle in the interim. -Peff
