From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Holt Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:19:33 +0000 Subject: Re: Pondering machvec ... was: [Patch] Remove sn2_defconfig. Message-Id: <20080816001933.GQ6824@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA309B82A07@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA309B82A07@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56:07AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > I don't think I understand your argument. Are you essentially saying we > > should consider eliminating the mach_vec stuff entirely? If so, will > > we essentially be saying that the distros need to build a seperate kernel > > for each of tiger, zx1, sn2, and uv? > > No ... exactly the opposite ... I'm wondering whether we should give > up maintaining/building all the tiger_, zx1_ configs and only have the > generic one ... since it appears that the number of end users of non-generic > kernels can be counted on the toes of one foot. I won't speak to the others, but as for sn2_defconfig SGI appears to still be a go. I did get feedback from a couple engineers that had been using the sn2_defconfig, but both seem to accept the generic_defconfig as an adequate substitue now that it has our needed disk drivers. Thanks, Robin