lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old subarchitecture code

    * Tim Pepper <lnxninja@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > The machines (yes plural!) on which we had regular testing happening
    > have been offline for a few months due to some broader dependencies (eg:
    > console server in the old product used an old version of windows that
    > doesn't meet the corporate security standards) and we've just not
    > managed to get past that. That in turn is in the way of debugging boot
    > issues with newer kernels. At this point the most passionate
    > Sequent/IBMers caring about the NUMAQ support are resigned to it being a
    > lost cause.
    >
    > The main benefit to carrying NUMAQ support along this long was these
    > machines had a knack for triggering real bugs. But since there's no
    > active bug testing happening on them now and it doesn't look like there
    > will be...

    At this point there's no technical need to kill it - it's a zero-overhead
    thing tucked away into a single .c module in arch/x86/kernel/numaq_32.c. I
    even consolidated most of its headers in that file, to reduce its cross
    section.

    That was the main point of the restructuring i did - subarchitectures were
    causing ongoing maintenance overhead before. That overhead is practically
    zero now.

    So two days ago it might have made some sense to rip out this code - now
    there's no pressing need really. We can remove it in a few years once the
    last beep has been received from those platforms. The numaq code is now
    quite similar to an old driver in drivers/* - there's no real downside
    from having it around.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-29 23:17    [W:0.022 / U:0.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site