From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F1FC48BD4 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F332133F for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729961AbfFYOYN (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:24:13 -0400 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 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 4554668B05; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:23:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:23:41 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig 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 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> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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.