Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Saturday 28 April 2007 11:15:33 Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Scary thought. But I don't see why people using embedded x86s should suddenly > design new interrupt controllers etc. - after all the main value of using x86s > embedded is some degree of compatibility to PC software. Ok, we'll see what > happens. Right but visws main difference was that it did not run a x86 BIOS as I recall. My memory says all of it's hardware was standard. >> So I think it makes a lot of sense to see if we can fold mach-visws >> and mach-voyager into appropriate pluggable interfaces. > > For voyager and NUMAQ i think it's fine to just wait until the last machine dies > (James, how many do you have left? @] iirc the number of NUMAQs still in > operation > is also slowly decreasing) Maybe. Again if we could convert them along with everything else to a modern structure it probably would not matter. I honestly think it is irresponsible to keep code in tree and not at least try to keep it working. Eric _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
