On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 07/08/2014 04:41 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:05:26PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >>On 07/08/2014 01:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > >>... > >>>since you're adding cmsg's from rfc6458, do you also want to add some > >>>deprecation warnings around the use of SCTP_SNDRCVINFO too, so we can start to > >>>schedule its eventual removal? > >> > >>Sure, we can do that. Do you want me to include it into the set? > > > >If you're plan is to implement 6458, then yes, I think that would be good. > > Looking a bit closer at it, all our pr_warn_ratelimited(DEPRECATED ...) > warnings in SCTP are being done in 'slowpath' {set,get}sockopt(2) operations > only, which is fine. What you're suggesting is to place similar ratelimited > warnings (due to different possible pids on the machine) into the 'fastpath' > where we get and set cmsg message headers. > > While that may be fine for {set,get}sockopt(2) that's called once or very few > times, I'm not sure this is a good idea in SCTP_SNDRCVINFO as it will yield > to unnecessary spamming the klog since up to now this is the only way our > users can set or receive this info. I'm not sure we want to annoy users like > that ... > Then we wrap it in a ONCE macro so that it only triggers on the first use instance. > In how many years do you plan a removal ... I think we're stuck with uapi > basically forever as we don't want to break old binaries, no? ;/ > I thought we could remove things on a schedule if we followed the deprecation process, but that may just be for sysfs. Regardless, it would still be nice to inform people they are using an older api. Neil -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html