From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261914AbUEQRPx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 13:15:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261920AbUEQRPx (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 13:15:53 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:51847 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261914AbUEQRPv (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2004 13:15:51 -0400 Message-ID: <40A8F339.8030908@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 13:15:37 -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: James Bottomley CC: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 References: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> <40A7DD0C.7010007@pobox.com> <1084743514.10765.22.camel@mulgrave> In-Reply-To: <1084743514.10765.22.camel@mulgrave> 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 James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 16:28, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>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. > > > I haven't looked at the net stuff but if it's like the SCSI stuff, it's > only usable in a pc9800. The vanilla kernel currently has no way to > select a pc9800 subarchitecture build. > > This is a test of interest. Since the pc9800 can't build the vanilla > kernel, is anyone maintaining the out of tree pieces to allow it to > build, and would they take on the job of maintaining it in-tree? if > no-one's interested in maintaining the pc9800 subarchitecture > components, it stands to reason that no-one is going to be compiling or > running the net or scsi drivers, so there's no point keeping them > hanging around. Thus, if one piece goes, they all should. Yeah, I suppose I agree, though I dislike removing it en masse for some reason. No real technical reason, more just gut feeling... The PC9800 people spent a good long while working with Alan and others to get what little bits got merged into the kernel. I suppose disappearing and not maintaining the code is the overriding factor here... Jeff