linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] x86, apic: Only use default_wait_for_init

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402062342190.21991@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:52:35 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Andrey Panin <pazke@...pac.ru>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-visws-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] x86, apic: Only use default_wait_for_init_deassert

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 02:31 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> > 
> > How do we usually do that?  Do we add a big fat warning for anyone who is 
> > using it for a few releases or just yank support out entirely and see if 
> > we're surprised?
> > 
> 
> We don't really *have* a good way of deprecation, this is the problem.
> Usually it doesn't happen until we find out that a bug snuck its way in
> and "X hasn't worked for N releases now, and noone has noticed."
> Voyager was finally killed off because the maintainer of the port was
> unwilling to keep up with the mainstream kernel flux.  The i386 explicit
> deprecation was definitely one of the more high-profile removals of a
> largely working port, and was a (brief) Kernel Summit topic.
> 
> I would love to see NumaQ, VisWS, Summit and ES7000 just nuked.  In
> fact, I'm thinking that unless someone steps up and explicitly claims
> ownership of those platforms by adding their name to MAINTAINERS (or
> reiterating them in the case of VisWS, which MAINTAINERS entry says "for
> 2.6") we should just rip them all out.
> 
> Anyone who wants to disagree?

Anyone who disagrees is automatically appointed to fill in the vacancy
in that section of the maintainers file:

PALEONTOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
M:      vacant@...eontological.systems
S:      reanimation

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/