linux-kernel - Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support

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:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 09:49:40 +1000
From:   Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, Chen Liqin <liqin.linux@...il.com>,
        Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
        Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, linux-metag@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Removing architectures without upstream gcc support

On 24/02/18 03:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:43:16PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Regarding the older architectures I mentioned (m32r, frv, mn10300),
>>> the situation is a bit different as they don't have the problems with
>>> build testing but they do have problems with using less of the
>>> standard interfaces (syscall, timer, gpio, rtc, ...), so they do add
>>> more to the maintenance burden without the nostalgia value of
>>> some of the even older architectures (parisc, alpha, m68k, ia64)
>>> that people maintain mainly for fun.
>>
>> IMHO the magic word is 'maintain'. If someone is actively maintaining it
>> then I don't think we should care too much, if not then while the code
>> may be buildable on current systems does anyone honestly think it works
>> properly if used in anger ?
>>
> 
> FWIW, alpha and m68k are known boot with qemu (even though m68k
> generates a warning traceback with the mainline kernel).

At the very least I build every defconfig for every rc and release
kernel for m68k. I also run a ColdFire build through qemu (non-MMU)
and also run it and an MMU build on real hardware. So they are
always checked and by far mostly work - and when they don't I fix
it ASAP.

I am pretty sure Geert does similar for the traditional 68k targets.
NXP still sell ColdFire parts, so for the moment it is not dead
in terms of available silicon.

(*) I know linux-4.16-rc1 and rc2 issue a warning on boot of a
non-MMU m68k/coldfire build due to the addition of a warning by
Christoph in 205e1b7f51e4 ("dma-mapping: warn when there is no
coherent_dma_mask") but I haven't had a chance to track what the
exact problem is there.

Regards
Greg