[RFC][PATCH] mark /proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level to be removed

[RFC][PATCH] mark /proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level to be removed

[Denis Cheng]

Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan@gmail.com>
---
Since scsi_logging_level module_param can be read/written while system
running, the demand for /proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level has been no longer
mandotory.

But someone might have already set this value in /etc/sysctl.conf, so
mark it to be removed in one year (until March 2009).

One year might be not enough or too long, this period should also be discussed.

 Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt |   13 +++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
index c1d1fd0..97bdb96 100644
--- a/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
+++ b/Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
@@ -328,3 +328,16 @@ Why:	Not used in-tree. The current out-of-tree users used it to
 	code / infrastructure should be in the kernel and not in some
 	out-of-tree driver.
 Who:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
+
+---------------------------
+
+What:	/proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level
+When:	March 2009
+Files:	drivers/scsi/scsi_sysctl.c
+Check:	/etc/sysctl.conf
+Why:	its functionality is also provided by the scsi_mod's module param,
+	module_param(scsi_logging_level, int, S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR);
+	that can be read and written with
+	/sys/module/scsi_mod/parameters/scsi_logging_level
+	like the sysctl interface while system running.
+Who:	Denis Cheng <crquan@gmail.com> or linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
-- 
1.5.4.4

Re: [RFC][PATCH] mark /proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level to be removed

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 21:03 +0800, Denis Cheng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan@gmail.com>
> ---
> Since scsi_logging_level module_param can be read/written while system
> running, the demand for /proc/sys/dev/scsi/logging_level has been no longer
> mandotory.
> 
> But someone might have already set this value in /etc/sysctl.conf, so
> mark it to be removed in one year (until March 2009).
> 
> One year might be not enough or too long, this period should also be discussed.

I don't think there's really much point to doing this.  We're already tied to the SYS_SYSCTL deprecation Eric Biderman is hoping to do for this; it's much better if the whole lot goes at once rather than piecemeal (particularly if sysctl stays around longer than anticipated).

James