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: <785CFEED-43D7-4C08-9659-6E394ED1B89E@uClinux.org>
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?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ