linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arch: remove obsolete architecture ports

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:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:01:42 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "moderated list:PANASONIC MN10300..." <linux-am33-list@...hat.com>,
        Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
        Lennox Wu <lennox.wu@...il.com>,
        Aaron Wu <Aaron.Wu@...log.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <chris.d.metcalf@...il.com>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch: remove obsolete architecture ports

On Tue 2018-04-03 11:18:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Regarding a possible revert, that would indeed involve reverting
> > multiple patches for most architectures, plus parts of at least these
> > three:
> >
> >   Documentation: arch-support: remove obsolete architectures
> >   treewide: simplify Kconfig dependencies for removed archs
> >   ktest: remove obsolete architectures
> >
> > For those, I went the other way, and removed all architectures at
> > once to simplify my work and to avoid touching the same files up
> > to eight times with interdependent patches (which couldn't
> > be reverted without conflicts either).
> >
> > There are a couple of driver removal patches that got picked up
> > into subsystem trees instead of this tree, so a full revert would also
> > involve finding other drivers, but if you prefer to have the patches
> > completely split up by arch, I could rework the series that way.
> 
> In reality, a resurrection may not be implemented as a pure revert, but as
> the addition of a new architecture, implemented using modern features (DT,
> CCF, ...).

By insisting on new features instead of pure revert + incremental
updates, you pretty much make sure resurection will not be possible
:-(.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)