From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161325AbXCONX7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:23:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161022AbXCONX7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:23:59 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:52753 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933543AbXCONX6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:23:58 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:23:54 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <45F94C45.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> In-Reply-To: <45F94C45.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703151423.54266.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote: > While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any > in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there > be objections to remove all of these? Would be fine for me. I think the original idea was to optimize for some SPARC systems, but they were never really used for that. x86 never needed them. -Andi