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:0.710 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site