From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <50856071.8080404@xenomai.org> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:04:17 +0200 From: Philippe Gerum 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> <50855FFD.90706@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <50855FFD.90706@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: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On 10/22/2012 05:02 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > 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 > > include/asm-x86/wrappers_32.h? yes. We just have to keep the generic bits for supporting 2.4/ppc, since this one is still in use and maintained. -- Philippe.