[Ksummit-2008-discuss] A suggestion for Linux 3.0
greg at kroah.com
Sat Aug 30 22:20:10 PDT 2008
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 04:29:41PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 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
>>>> 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
I do have Andi's old patches for symbol namespaces that I keep poking at
to also help in this area, that would be nice to have as well.
>>> * 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 ;)
Sure, I have no problem with that at all, should be a good conversation.
More information about the Ksummit-2008-discuss