From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932406AbVHRXkc (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:40:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932413AbVHRXkb (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:40:31 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:60639 "EHLO ozlabs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932406AbVHRXkb (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:40:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17157.7275.960362.923238@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:40:27 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Kumar Gala Cc: Miklos Szeredi , , , "Gala Kumar K.-galak" , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: removed usage of In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kumar Gala writes: > So after all of this its not clear to me if its acceptable to kill > all users of in the kernel and to move code that > exists in to for arch's that need it. doesn't describe any part of the user/kernel ABI, so we should be OK to kill it. I would say we should remove the ppc and ppc64 versions of it once 2.6.13 is out, and offer the other arch maintainers a patch that moves their stuff as you suggest. I think also we could submit patches to remove the places where it is included in generic kernel code post 2.6.13. Paul.