On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:12:54PM -0700, Mark Post wrote: > >>> On 2/13/2014 at 02:05 PM, Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > Giving maintainership of the 31 bit code to somebody else wouldn't help > > us at all. We would still need to take care of the old code if we would > > change anything else in order to not break 31 bit. > > In addition it would make our life even more complicated due to merge > > conflicts etc. > > Sounds like what happens with every other architecture in Linux to me. > I'm pretty sure that's part of what Linus et. al. deal with every day, > all day long. I think you're making my case for me.
Sure, and that would be additional work from where we are now. Exactly the opposite of what I try to reach with the whole exercise ;) If there is hugh demand for keeping the 31 bit kernel then that is also fine. However splitting the architecture (source files) is not the way we should go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
