linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections

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:	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:22:59 +0900
From:	"uClinux.org" <Jeff@...inux.org>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: remove linux-sh list from non-arch/sh sections

On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:02, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:

>>>> meaning has shifted more to the "Linux Renesas mailing list".
>> 
>> What I mean is that this is still a public mailing list for the Linux kernel community, to discuss and develop for Renesas SoCs, which are evolutions from the old SuperH SoCs.
> 
> There is a lot of unrelated traffic on here which is just noise for the original purpose of maintaining arch/sh, yes.

And -this- is the point.  SH is an ISA, which is no longer controller by Renensas, nee Hitachi Semiconductor.  We now have (and employ as their day job) some of the original architects of that ISA in the J-Core project.  Renesas has abandoned the ISA, now that the patents have expired.

We aim to build community support, in the Linux community, for this ISA.  That means 'public mailing list... old SuperH SoCs' is not only the wrong way to look at it, it's actually counter productive to building that support.  Who wants old SoCs?