On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 17:50, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 02:00:03 PST (-0800), ardb@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > The IA64 port of Linux has no maintainer, and according to a report from > > its only remaining user [0], it has been broken for a month and nobody > > cares. > > > > Given that keeping a complex but unused architecture alive uses up > > valuable developer bandwidth, let's just get rid of it. > > > > This supersedes my patch proposing to mark it as 'dead', which received > > no replies from anyone that wants to keep it alive. [1] > > > > [0] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ia64/msg21926.html > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128122904.1345120-1-ardb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Ard Biesheuvel (5): > > arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture > > kernel: Drop IA64 support from sig_fault handlers > > Documentation: Drop IA64 from feature descriptions > > lib/raid6: Drop IA64 support > > Documentation: Drop or replace remaining mentions of IA64 > > Not sure if I'm missing it in the diff, but it looks like there's also a > bunch of "#ifdef __ia64__" and "#ifdef __IA64__" type code spread > throughout the kernel. I didn't look at the actual diff, but it's in > files that aren't showing up in the diffstat. > Thanks for taking a look. It seems I indeed missed a couple. > Just "git grep -i __ia64__" lists a bunch. I didn't look at all of > them, but at least spot checking include/acpi/actypes.h looks like it's > a real Itanium workaround. If the arch goes, it's probbaly worth > removing those too? > The ACPI code is synced with another project, so I didn't touch it. Same goes for some other header files where IA-64 is referenced, e.g., in the PE/COFF header stuff. > There's also some mentions of "Itanium" in Documentation outside that > don't look like they got caught here. Not sure if they'd be worth > getting rid of, though as they could still be useful examples. The > blurb in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt looks pretty port-specific, > though. > Yeah, I don't think it is necessary to rewrite history soviet-style, so some remaining references are fine IMHO.
|