linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh?

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: <20190625142927.GE1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:29:27 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh?

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:23:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:21:44AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > I'm generally okay with all proposed non-functional changes that come
> > up that are just eliminating arch-specific cruft to use new shared
> > kernel infrastructure. I recall replying to a few indicating this, but
> > I missed a lot more. If it would be helpful I think I can commit to
> > doing at least this more consistently, but I'm happy to have other
> > maintainers make that call too.
> 
> It woud be great if you could at least apply with a tentative ack.
> At least for some trees we try very hard to get a maintainer ack,
> so silence is holding things back to some extent.

OK.

> I'd also like to second Arnds request to figure out if any bits
> are truely dead.  E.g. 64-bit sh5 support very much appears so.

I agree, and just replied there.

Rich