[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100123052257.GA19399@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:22:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Ozan ??a??layan <ozan@...dus.org.tr>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, stable@...nel.org,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: deprecate CONFIG_X86_CPU_DEBUG and schedule it for rapid
removal
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > We know that enabling this feature will cause some machines to hang,
> > and that this problem has existed for six months.
> >
> > Would it not be better to fix that problem (perhaps just with the
> > revert) so that 2.6.33, 2.6.32.x and earlier can be fixed? Then we can
> > nuke the feature in 2.6.34.
>
> Another way of looking at is "we know it's been broken for six months, and
> clearly nobody really ever enabled it in any distro, and even getting a bug
> report on it took forever. So why keep it around at all"?
>
> So I'd personally rather just remove it outright than deprecate it or even
> try to fix it. Since clearly absolutely nobody depends on it.
>
> The usual reason for deprecating a feature is to give people time to move
> away from it, but since clearly nobody uses it...
Excellent - that makes it all even simpler to handle.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists