From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh? Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:23:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20190625142341.GA6948@lst.de> References: <20190625085616.GA32399@lst.de> <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rich Felker Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Yoshinori Sato , Arnd Bergmann , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:21:44AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > I'm generally okay with all proposed non-functional changes that come > up that are just eliminating arch-specific cruft to use new shared > kernel infrastructure. I recall replying to a few indicating this, but > I missed a lot more. If it would be helpful I think I can commit to > doing at least this more consistently, but I'm happy to have other > maintainers make that call too. It woud be great if you could at least apply with a tentative ack. At least for some trees we try very hard to get a maintainer ack, so silence is holding things back to some extent. I'd also like to second Arnds request to figure out if any bits are truely dead. E.g. 64-bit sh5 support very much appears so. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:35346 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727070AbfFYOYN (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:24:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:23:41 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh? Message-ID: <20190625142341.GA6948@lst.de> References: <20190625085616.GA32399@lst.de> <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rich Felker Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , Yoshinori Sato , Arnd Bergmann , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20190625142341.CQ2gCYAFUMaATDkT3qs4NxzA3LWvpc1lFs-8E-mUQ4w@z> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:21:44AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > I'm generally okay with all proposed non-functional changes that come > up that are just eliminating arch-specific cruft to use new shared > kernel infrastructure. I recall replying to a few indicating this, but > I missed a lot more. If it would be helpful I think I can commit to > doing at least this more consistently, but I'm happy to have other > maintainers make that call too. It woud be great if you could at least apply with a tentative ack. At least for some trees we try very hard to get a maintainer ack, so silence is holding things back to some extent. I'd also like to second Arnds request to figure out if any bits are truely dead. E.g. 64-bit sh5 support very much appears so.