linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PULL] remove arch/h8300

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: <04c0374f-0044-c84d-1820-d743a4061906@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:47:04 +0200
From:   John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:H8/300 ARCHITECTURE" 
        <uclinux-h8-devel@...ts.sourceforge.jp>,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PULL] remove arch/h8300

On 4/7/22 09:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:25 PM Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote:
> 
>> I'm interested in H8300 because it's a tiny architecture (under 6k lines total,
>> in 93 files) and thus a good way to see what a minimal Linux port looks like. If
>> somebody would like to suggest a different one for that...
> 
> Anything that is maintained is usually a better example, and it helps when the
> code is not old enough to have accumulated a lot of historic baggage.

But if it's not a lot of code, would it really accumulate a lot of cruft?

If the code just works as is and doesn't need much attention to keep it working
why not keep it? As long as the code doesn't break anything else what's the
problem with keeping it?

FWIW, the H8 backend in GCC was just recently modernized and improved and converted
to MODE_CC.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@...ian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913