On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/769468/ wrote:
> > For example, the m68k architecture uses a number of internal APIs
> > that no other architecture needs at this point; removing that
> > architecture would enable removing the APIs as well
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> This stuff is so getting annoying. I don't understand why all of a
> sudden there is such a big urge to kick everything out that is old. Is
> the Linux kernel supposed to be an x86-only project?
>
Some maintainers don't like mature code.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/769468/ wrote:
> > For example, the m68k architecture uses a number of internal APIs that no
> > other
> > architecture needs at this point; removing that architecture would enable
> > removing
On 10/27/18 5:01 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> This kind of approach has worked well in the Debian community
>
> Right, Debian stopped supporting m68k a long time ago ;-)
This stuff is so getting annoying. I don't understand why all of a sudden there
is
such a big urge to kick everything out
Hi Arnd,
https://lwn.net/Articles/769468/ wrote:
> For example, the m68k architecture uses a number of internal APIs that no
> other
> architecture needs at this point; removing that architecture would enable
> removing
> the APIs as well
and
> Ted Ts'o suggested that an ultimatum could be
Hi Firoz,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:06 AM Firoz Khan wrote:
> The purpose of this patch series is, we can easily add/modify/delete
> system call table support by changing entry in syscall.tbl file
> instead of manually changing many files. The other goal is to unify
> the system call table
