> Yes, removal is not premature; long overdue if anything. At the risk
> of overlapping Andries' job as official historian, I found this in my
> archive of cruft. So it was almost 1996 :)
So why don't we print the warning with 2.4 as well?
intrepid:~/CVS$ rpm -qi bdflush
Name : bdflush Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version : 1.5 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
Release : 21 Build Date: Sun Jun 23 16:19:27 2002
And it's run by /etc/inittab.
I don't know if returning -EINVAL (= removing the call completely in 2.5)
isn't better, though - does it have any compatibility implications?
-- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/