[Ksummit-2008-discuss] A suggestion for Linux 3.0
Arjan van de Ven
arjan at linux.intel.com
Sat Aug 30 16:29:41 PDT 2008
Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 01:21:21PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Having spent ages wading through old broken ISA drivers some of which
>>> clearly have no users as they've not worked for years I want throw in
>>> another proposal for the kernel summit
>>> At some point soon we add all the old legacy ISA drivers (barring the odd
>>> ones that turn up in embedded chipsets on LPC bus) into the
>>> feature-removal list and declare an 'ISA death' flag day which we brand
>>> 2.8 or 3.0 or something so everyone knows that we are having a single
>>> clean 'throw out' of old junk.
>>> It would also be a chance to throw out a whole pile of other "legacy"
>>> things like ipt_tos, bzImage symlinks, ancient SCTP options, ancient
>>> lmsensor support, V4L1 only driver stuff etc.
>> I like the idea of at least discussing this, and for a bunch of people making a long
>> list of what would go.
>> Based on that whole list it becomes a value discussion/decision; is there enough of
>> this to make it worth doing.
>> adding to that potential list
>> * OSS audio drivers
>> * drivers/ide ? (with ISA gone the list gets small there anyway)
>> * do we want to obsolete some obscure arches ?
>> * old-ISDN (not mISDN)
>> * gazillion exports that can go with the core going
> With the "core going" where?
well some core pieces going away, like most of the legacy ISA APIs etc
>> * do we want to draw a line for userland support?
>> (binfmt_aout anyone?)
> Can't we do all of the above today in our current model? Or is it just
> a marketing thing to bump to 3.0? If so, should we just pick a release
> and say, "here, 2.6.31 is the last 2.6 kernel and for the next 3 months
> we are just going to rip things out and create 3.0"?
the reason for a bumb is to do the things that we can't really do in our current model,
eg require bigger userland changes and general the change of what we support.
if the list is not long or if we end up concluding we can do it in the current model,
fine. but lets at least do the excercise. It's worth validating the model we have
once in a while ;)
More information about the Ksummit-2008-discuss