Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 02:13:45 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: dsa: Rename IFLA_DSA_MASTER to
 IFLA_DSA_CONDUIT
Message-ID: <20231012231345.3thxxxhe7pxs5bib@skbuf>
References: <20231011222026.4181654-1-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
 <20231011222026.4181654-3-florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
 <20231011163003.32036b28@hermes.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231011163003.32036b28@hermes.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 04:30:03PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I don't know if it would be acceptable in the kernel UAPI but what
> we did in DPDK for similar situation to cause warning on use of deprecated value.
> 
> /**
>  *  Macro to mark macros and defines scheduled for removal
>  */
> #if defined(RTE_CC_GCC) || defined(RTE_CC_CLANG)
> #define RTE_PRAGMA(x)  _Pragma(#x)
> #define RTE_PRAGMA_WARNING(w) RTE_PRAGMA(GCC warning #w)
> #define RTE_DEPRECATED(x)  RTE_PRAGMA_WARNING(#x is deprecated)
> #else
> #define RTE_DEPRECATED(x)
> #endif
> 
> ...
> #define RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED \
> 	RTE_DEPRECATED(RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED) RTE_DEV_ALLOWED
> #define RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED \
> 	RTE_DEPRECATED(RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED) RTE_DEV_BLOCKED

What precedent exists in terms of intentionally breaking kernel headers?
If none, would this create one?