From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <50855FFD.90706@xenomai.org> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:02:21 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <50798BD3.6010308@xenomai.org> <50798F8A.8060508@xenomai.org> <508171AB.8010707@xenomai.org> <50818781.7050204@xenomai.org> <50827B74.2030408@xenomai.org> <50829C67.9040909@xenomai.org> <50829D93.7000407@xenomai.org> <50829E28.2020801@xenomai.org> <50829EC8.1030809@xenomai.org> <5082A25C.4030204@xenomai.org> <50854DB4.3080100@xenomai.org> <50855FBE.7020403@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <50855FBE.7020403@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Which kernel versions? List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 10/22/2012 05:01 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On 10/22/2012 03:44 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 10/20/2012 03:08 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >>> On 10/20/2012 02:53 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2012 02:50 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/20/2012 02:48 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>>> On 10/20/2012 02:43 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/20/2012 12:22 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that the list is not exhaustive, because it does not includes >>>>>>>> patches that were published before the i386/x86_64 merge, if you take >>>>>>>> that into account, you can even run Xenomai 2.6.1 with 2.4 kernels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.4.25/ppc only though. We stopped maintaining 2.4/x86 setups many moons >>>>>>> ago, so I doubt this would even build. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is build-tested with every release. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Build AND tested, or tested for build? I did not test such configuration >>>>> for ages, do you actually test this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> tested for build only. >>>> >>> >>> We can pull the plug on this. >>> >> >> >> On the other hand, it does not cost us much to maintain this. >> > > We don't maintain this, I mean we don't test it at all anymore, and we > have no bandwidth to put it back in our manual test routines, and would > these fail, I don't think we should spend a minute fixing it. So we are > left with a decision to let it bit rot, or remove it. Bit rotting of > architecture ports is something we have been trying hard to avoid since > day #1, so removing such support would be consistent with that policy. Ok, if we remove the support in asm/wrappers.h -- Gilles.