On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 14:38 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 08:27:12AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > I'm fine with any of these approaches if the consensus is that it's too > > risky to just remove it. OTOH, I've yet to ever hear of any application > > that uses this feature, even in a historical sense. > > Honestly, I agree. Some have fun of me because I'm often using old > stuff, but I don't even remember having used an application that > made use of mandatory locking. I remember having enabled it myself in > my kernels long ago after discovering its existence in the man pages, > just to test it. It doesn't rule out the possibility that it exists > somewhere though, but I think that the immediate removal combined > with the big fat warning in previous branches should be largely > enough to avoid the last minute surprise. > Good point. It wouldn't hurt to push such a warning into stable kernels at the same time. There always is a lag when we do something like this before some downstream user notices. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
