From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264828AbUEPVWB (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:22:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264827AbUEPVWA (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:22:00 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:49332 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264817AbUEPVVy (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 17:21:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:21:23 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Randy.Dunlap" Subject: Re: [patch] kill off PC9800 Message-Id: <20040516142123.2fd8611b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> References: <1084729840.10938.13.camel@mulgrave> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > > Randy.Dunlap" 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 And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?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.