From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263028AbUEPV27 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:28:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261830AbUEPV27 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:28:59 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:28900 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263028AbUEPV25 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:28:57 -0400 Message-ID: <40A7DD0C.7010007@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:28:44 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 References: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Well it's a question of whether we're likely to see increasing demand for > [pc9800] in the future. If so then it would be prudent to put some effort into > fixing it up rather than removing it. > > Seems that's not the case. I don't see a huge rush on this but if after > this discussion nobody steps up to take care of the code over the next few > weeks, it's best to remove it. Although I like deleting things as much as the next guy :) I do have a question, to which I haven't come up with a good answer myself: Should PC9800 be excised en masse, or just toss the obviously broken or not-in-any-makefile/Kconfig pieces? The PC9800 net driver stuff still seems to build, and be sane. Jeff