Re: [patch] kill off PC9800

[Brian Gerst]

Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >    Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@xxxxxxxx> 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    And the hardware is obsolete, isn't it?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.
>
>
> Perhaps a nicer way to do this is to add a compile warning or error:
>
> #warning "arch/i386/mach-pc9800 unmaintained since xx/xx/xx, nominated
> for removal xx/xx/xx if unclaimed"
>
> ..where the second date is, say, 3+ months after the warning goes in.
> Then people can nominate stuff for removal with one liners and users
> will get ample opportunity to complain.

You're missing the point that this code doesn't compile *at all*. 
Nobody would ever see the warning.

--
				Brian Gerst
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/