On Tue 2018-04-03 11:18:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Regarding a possible revert, that would indeed involve reverting > > multiple patches for most architectures, plus parts of at least these > > three: > > > > Documentation: arch-support: remove obsolete architectures > > treewide: simplify Kconfig dependencies for removed archs > > ktest: remove obsolete architectures > > > > For those, I went the other way, and removed all architectures at > > once to simplify my work and to avoid touching the same files up > > to eight times with interdependent patches (which couldn't > > be reverted without conflicts either). > > > > There are a couple of driver removal patches that got picked up > > into subsystem trees instead of this tree, so a full revert would also > > involve finding other drivers, but if you prefer to have the patches > > completely split up by arch, I could rework the series that way. > > In reality, a resurrection may not be implemented as a pure revert, but as > the addition of a new architecture, implemented using modern features (DT, > CCF, ...). By insisting on new features instead of pure revert + incremental updates, you pretty much make sure resurection will not be possible :-(. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
