linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230215170815.GA3787950@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:08:15 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>,
        John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Mark Itanium/IA64 as 'dead'

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 04:40:30PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:15, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 01:29:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > Create a new status 'dead' which conveys that a subsystem is
> > > unmaintained and scheduled for removal, and developers are free to
> > > behave as if it's already gone. Also, automated build tests should
> > > ignore such subsystems, or at least notify only those who are known to
> > > have an interest in the subsystem in particular.
> > >
> > > Given that Itanium/IA64 has no maintainer, is no longer supported in
> > > QEMU (for boot testing under emulation) and does not seem to have a user
> > > base beyond a couple of machines used by distros to churn out packages,
> > > let's mark it as dead. This shall mean that any treewide changes (such
> > > as changes to the EFI subsystem, which I maintain) can be made even if
> > > they might cause build or boot time regressions on IA64 machines. Also,
> > > mark the port as scheduled for removal after the next LTS release.
> > >
> >
> > Since this just came up, I very much prefer complete removal. I don't
> > see the point of keeping dead code in the tree. That is still hidden
> > maintenance effort.
> >
> 
> Can I take this as an ack on
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230215100008.2565237-1-ardb@kernel.org/
>

I would not have considered myself important enough to make such a call,
but from a testbed maintainer's perspective it is an enthusiastic yes.

At the same time, again from a testbed maintainer's perspective,
introducing a new "dead" state into the code base deserves a just as
enthusiastic NACK.

Thanks,
Guenter


> ?
> 
> > If this proliferates, we'll end up having to parse the MAINTAINERS file
> > for code marked "Dead" to ensure that we don't accidentally send e-mails
> > to the wrong people, or we risk getting complaints about sending reports
> > for such code. That puts extra burden on maintainers of automated test
> > beds, which I think is not really appropriate. If the code is dead,
> > remove it, period.
> >
> > For my part, I'll drop my test bed support immediately after this patch
> > made it in, following the guidance above.
> >
> 
> Thanks for the insight. I think we should take the immediate removal route.