From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 216-12-86-13.cv.mvl.ntelos.net ([216.12.86.13]:55376 "EHLO brightrain.aerifal.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726207AbeHESiM (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Aug 2018 14:38:12 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 12:32:34 -0400 From: Rich Felker Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: remove unneeded constructor. Message-ID: <20180805163234.GR1392@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20180731051519.101249-1-ysato@users.sourceforge.jp> <87600us5k9.wl-ysato@users.sourceforge.jp> <20180804103550.GA3183@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180804105149.GB3183@bombadil.infradead.org> <4e9e1599-9dbf-75dc-561e-77d5cb063714@landley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4e9e1599-9dbf-75dc-561e-77d5cb063714@landley.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rob Landley Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Geert Uytterhoeven , Yoshinori Sato , Linux-sh list , Linux-Arch On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:54:56AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 08/04/2018 05:51 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 12:47:08PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> You do want to readd the __GFP_ZERO flag to the second user of PGALLOC_GFP, > >> don't you? > > > > I missed that! Probably only relevant for SH-64. But yes ... probably better > > to make this explicit then: > > As far as I know sh5/sh-64 never shipped, it was just some prototype hardware > that didn't go to production? I'm not sure about the details, but GCC has removed support and it's effectively dead. I would be happy to merge patches removing the existing SH-64 stuff in the kernel too. I'm not sure if generality to support LP64 should be left in the arch/sh tree for future or if the eventual 64-bit j-core should just be done as a separate arch tree; I suspect the latter might be cleaner. Rich