Re: [crosspost] dropping support for ia64
- To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
- Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, matoro <matoro_mailinglist_kernel@matoro.tk>, Frank Scheiner <frank.scheiner@web.de>, "distributions@lists.freedesktop.org" <distributions@lists.freedesktop.org>, "debian-ia64@lists.debian.org" <debian-ia64@lists.debian.org>, "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>, "port-ia64@netbsd.org" <port-ia64@netbsd.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Daniel Kiper <dkiper@net-space.pl>, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
- Subject: Re: [crosspost] dropping support for ia64
- From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 18:38:59 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 2023052202-tuesday-ploy-9156@gregkh>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] SJ1PR11MB60833AF98E6E9D3CD89AB393FC439@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
- References: <4e210d61adbe73a1673f113019401e5c@matoro.tk> <[🔎] 12a3e3c5-9465-c97f-58ab-938e80681fbc@web.de> <5e778e16f93f2286fa535597ba5da24b@matoro.tk> <[🔎] 87y1lj0x0m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <[🔎] ff58a3e76e5102c94bb5946d99187b358def688a.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de> <[🔎] CAMj1kXGmbtiosH3fwMuduFvjmb2PVsX-tMLTk96jPvmW+oKi-w@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 2023052230-lunacy-graffiti-0cee@gregkh> <[🔎] CAMj1kXFWCo4kqkGeYDqY9JJ3bTesJefKTPFhnnszWHbbD4jXwQ@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 2023052202-stumble-debtless-8613@gregkh> <[🔎] SJ1PR11MB60833AF98E6E9D3CD89AB393FC439@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 05:27:23PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> As far as we have been able to establish, the only people that use
> >> this arch and code are people that would hate to see it go, but don't
> >> actually use it for anything other than checking whether it still
> >> boots, and don't have the skills or bandwidth to step up and maintain
> >> it upstream.
> >
> > Great, then let's drop it today, there is no need to wait until the end
> > of the year as nothing is going to change then.
>
> I think this also puts the existing stable and LTS trees in some interesting
> state. After arch/ia64 is removed, there may be some tree-wide change
> that gets backported to stable & LTS. That may break arch/ia64 in those
> trees (e.g. because arguments to some common function are changed).
>
> Maybe just deal with that if it happens ... and if anyone notices ... are there
> automated builds and boot test for ia64 in those trees?
Guenter builds for that, but really, if the tree breaks and no one
notices, is it really broken? :)
We handle this all the time in other types of removals (drivers,
subsystems, etc.) I doubt this tiny amount of arch code will matter
much in the long run.
thanks,
greg k-h
Reply to: