On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:02 PM, James Hogan <jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:26:58AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:38 AM, James Hogan <jhogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > So lets call it a day and drop the Meta architecture port from the
>> > kernel. RIP Meta.
>>
>> Since I brought up the architecture removal independently, I could
>> pick this up into a git tree that also has the removal of some of the
>> other architectures.
>>
>> I see your tree is part of linux-next, so you could also just put it
>> in there and send a pull request at the merge window if you prefer.
>>
>> The only real reason I see for a shared git tree would be to avoid
>> conflicts when we touch the same Kconfig files or #ifdefs in driver,
>> but Meta only appears in
>>
>> config FRAME_POINTER
>> bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers"
>> depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \
>> (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \
>> SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \
>> ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
>>
>> and
>>
>> include/trace/events/mmflags.h:#elif defined(CONFIG_PARISC) ||
>> defined(CONFIG_METAG) || defined(CONFIG_IA64)
>>
>> so there is little risk.
>
> I'm happy to put v2 in linux-next now (only patch 4 has changed, I just
> sent an updated version), and send you a pull request early next week so
> you can take it from there. The patches can't be directly applied with
> git-am anyway thanks to the -D option to make them more concise.
>
> Sound okay?
Yes, sounds good, thanks!
Arnd
