linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arch: remove obsolete architecture ports

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:18:15 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "moderated list:PANASONIC MN10300..." <linux-am33-list@...hat.com>,
        Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
        Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
        Aaron Wu <Aaron.Wu@...log.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <chris.d.metcalf@...il.com>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch: remove obsolete architecture ports

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Regarding a possible revert, that would indeed involve reverting
> multiple patches for most architectures, plus parts of at least these
> three:
>
>   Documentation: arch-support: remove obsolete architectures
>   treewide: simplify Kconfig dependencies for removed archs
>   ktest: remove obsolete architectures
>
> For those, I went the other way, and removed all architectures at
> once to simplify my work and to avoid touching the same files up
> to eight times with interdependent patches (which couldn't
> be reverted without conflicts either).
>
> There are a couple of driver removal patches that got picked up
> into subsystem trees instead of this tree, so a full revert would also
> involve finding other drivers, but if you prefer to have the patches
> completely split up by arch, I could rework the series that way.

In reality, a resurrection may not be implemented as a pure revert, but as
the addition of a new architecture, implemented using modern features (DT,
CCF, ...).

Cfr. the resurrected arch/h8300, which doesn't have much in common with
the removed one:

$ git diff --stat v3.12..v4.2 -- arch/h8300
[...]
 197 files changed, 3155 insertions(+), 7849 deletions(-)

(for a total of ca. 6200 lines)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds