From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08BED9F for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12D16A8 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:06:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:05:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall To: Jani Nikula In-Reply-To: <87r2i5y6n6.fsf@intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20180906094158.1eba4f50@canb.auug.org.au> <20180905222437.5d2a1730@vmware.local.home> <20180907091842.6c55bd9a@canb.auug.org.au> <87zhwtybr3.fsf@intel.com> <87r2i5y6n6.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] API replacement/deprecation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 07 Sep 2018, Julia Lawall wrote: > > I came up with the following Coccinelle semantic patch. The advantage is > > that it can also give a hint as to what should be done. The intent is > > that it should be easily extensible. > > The only real downside that I can see is that it centralizes the > deprecation information in the semantic patch instead of the functions > themselves. It's possible to put comments in the code near the definition. There are a number of occurrences of deprecated already. People who are just copying code from something else may not actually look at the definition of all of the functions they are copying, so there should be some benefit to having the information somehow attached to uses. julia