From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Request for review] Revised delete_module(2) manual page
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:16:01 +1030
Message-ID: <87r4p46312.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <CAKgNAkgp1er3-3nvge9_aVObuuxBatGRur8DtiTzyWK4w+4hrA@mail.gmail.com> <87txu17lss.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <CAMOw1v6Cn4VODJ1yEaRwMusf-zUeNjKOYegRkdsKyaqFkjtHRw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMOw1v6Cn4VODJ1yEaRwMusf-zUeNjKOYegRkdsKyaqFkjtHRw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>, Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>
List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org

Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi> writes:
> What do you think? Mark as deprecated now and remove when kernel
> removes it? Or remove now?

Complain now, and I'll queue the removal in two merge windows.

Thats gives us a chance just in case someone actually uses this; if so I
want to talk to them about what it is they want!

Thanks,
Rusty.