Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:47 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Retire IA64/Itanium support | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:00:28 PST (-0800), ardb@kernel.org wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 17:50, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 02:00:03 PST (-0800), ardb@kernel.org wrote: >> > The IA64 port of Linux has no maintainer, and according to a report from >> > its only remaining user [0], it has been broken for a month and nobody >> > cares. >> > >> > Given that keeping a complex but unused architecture alive uses up >> > valuable developer bandwidth, let's just get rid of it. >> > >> > This supersedes my patch proposing to mark it as 'dead', which received >> > no replies from anyone that wants to keep it alive. [1] >> > >> > [0] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ia64/msg21926.html >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128122904.1345120-1-ardb@kernel.org/ >> > >> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> >> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> >> > Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> >> > Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> >> > Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> >> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> >> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> >> > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> >> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> >> > Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >> > >> > Ard Biesheuvel (5): >> > arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture >> > kernel: Drop IA64 support from sig_fault handlers >> > Documentation: Drop IA64 from feature descriptions >> > lib/raid6: Drop IA64 support >> > Documentation: Drop or replace remaining mentions of IA64 >> >> Not sure if I'm missing it in the diff, but it looks like there's also a >> bunch of "#ifdef __ia64__" and "#ifdef __IA64__" type code spread >> throughout the kernel. I didn't look at the actual diff, but it's in >> files that aren't showing up in the diffstat. >> > > Thanks for taking a look. It seems I indeed missed a couple. > >> Just "git grep -i __ia64__" lists a bunch. I didn't look at all of >> them, but at least spot checking include/acpi/actypes.h looks like it's >> a real Itanium workaround. If the arch goes, it's probbaly worth >> removing those too? >> > > The ACPI code is synced with another project, so I didn't touch it. > Same goes for some other header files where IA-64 is referenced, e.g., > in the PE/COFF header stuff.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Pretty sure there's some scattered in drivers, but...
>> There's also some mentions of "Itanium" in Documentation outside that >> don't look like they got caught here. Not sure if they'd be worth >> getting rid of, though as they could still be useful examples. The >> blurb in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt looks pretty port-specific, >> though. >> > > Yeah, I don't think it is necessary to rewrite history soviet-style, > so some remaining references are fine IMHO.
That seems reasonable to me -- assuming the port goes the rest is just dead code so it'll filter out over time (presumably all over userspace too, which will take a while).
| |