From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rich Felker Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:29:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh? Message-Id: <20190625142927.GE1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> List-Id: References: <20190625085616.GA32399@lst.de> <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190625142341.GA6948@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20190625142341.GA6948@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz , Linus Torvalds , Yoshinori Sato , Arnd Bergmann , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:23:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. OK. > 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. I agree, and just replied there. Rich