lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    Subject[TECH TOPIC] Planning code obsolescence
    I have submitted the below as a topic for the linux/arch/* MC that Mike
    and I run, but I suppose it also makes sense to discuss it on the
    ksummit-discuss mailing list (cross-posted to linux-arch and lkml) as well
    even if we don't discuss it at the main ksummit track.

    Arnd

    8<---
    The majority of the code in the kernel deals with hardware that was made
    a long time ago, and we are regularly discussing which of those bits are
    still needed. In some cases (e.g. 20+ year old RISC workstation support),
    there are hobbyists that take care of maintainership despite there being
    no commercial interest. In other cases (e.g. x.25 networking) it turned
    out that there are very long-lived products that are actively supported
    on new kernels.

    When I removed support for eight instruction set architectures in 2018,
    those were the ones that no longer had any users of mainline kernels,
    and removing them allowed later cleanup of cross-architecture code that
    would have been much harder before.

    I propose adding a Documentation file that keeps track of any notable
    kernel feature that could be classified as "obsolete", and listing
    e.g. following properties:

    * Kconfig symbol controlling the feature

    * How long we expect to keep it as a minimum

    * Known use cases, or other reasons this needs to stay

    * Latest kernel in which it was known to have worked

    * Contact information for known users (mailing list, personal email)

    * Other features that may depend on this

    * Possible benefits of eventually removing it

    With that information, my hope is that it becomes easier to plan when
    some code can be removed after the last users have stopped upgrading
    their kernels, while also preventing code from being removed that is
    actually still in active use.

    In the discussion at the linux/arch/* MC, I would hope to answer these
    questions:

    * Do other developers find this useful to have?

    * Where should the information be kept (Documentation/*, Kconfig,
    MAINTAINERS, wiki.kernel.org, ...)

    * Which information should be part of an entry?

    * What granularity should this be applied to -- only high-level features
    like CPU architectures and subsystems, or individual drivers and machines?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-07-31 17:01    [W:5.640 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site