From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263529AbUERUXN (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:23:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263551AbUERUXN (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:23:13 -0400 Received: from mail2.iserv.net ([204.177.184.152]:27037 "EHLO mail2.iserv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263529AbUERUXJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:23:09 -0400 Message-ID: <40AA70B6.1050405@didntduck.org> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:23:18 -0400 From: Brian Gerst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Mackall CC: Andrew Morton , 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> <20040518201416.GT5414@waste.org> In-Reply-To: <20040518201416.GT5414@waste.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 Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>James Bottomley wrote: >> >>> Randy.Dunlap" wrote: >>> > >>> > PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers >>> > don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile. >>> >>> And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it? Does anyone know when they were >>> last manufactured, and how popular they are? >>> >>>Hey, just being obsolete is no grounds for eliminating a >>>subarchitecture... >> >>Well it's a question of whether we're likely to see increasing demand for >>it 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. > > > Perhaps a nicer way to do this is to add a compile warning or error: > > #warning "arch/i386/mach-pc9800 unmaintained since xx/xx/xx, nominated > for removal xx/xx/xx if unclaimed" > > ..where the second date is, say, 3+ months after the warning goes in. > Then people can nominate stuff for removal with one liners and users > will get ample opportunity to complain. > You're missing the point that this code doesn't compile *at all*. Nobody would ever see the warning. -- Brian Gerst