Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 May 2004 16:23:18 -0400 | From | Brian Gerst <> | Subject | Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 |
| |
Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> wrote: >> >>> Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > PC9800 sub-arch is incomplete, hackish (at least in IDE), maintainers >>> > don't reply to emails and haven't touched it in awhile. >>> >>> And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it? Does anyone know when they were >>> last manufactured, and how popular they are? >>> >>>Hey, just being obsolete is no grounds for eliminating a >>>subarchitecture... >> >>Well it's a question of whether we're likely to see increasing demand for >>it in the future. If so then it would be prudent to put some effort into >>fixing it up rather than removing it. >> >>Seems that's not the case. I don't see a huge rush on this but if after >>this discussion nobody steps up to take care of the code over the next few >>weeks, it's best to remove it. > > > Perhaps a nicer way to do this is to add a compile warning or error: > > #warning "arch/i386/mach-pc9800 unmaintained since xx/xx/xx, nominated > for removal xx/xx/xx if unclaimed" > > ..where the second date is, say, 3+ months after the warning goes in. > Then people can nominate stuff for removal with one liners and users > will get ample opportunity to complain. >
You're missing the point that this code doesn't compile *at all*. Nobody would ever see the warning.
-- Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |