From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:33:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20150316223318.02145751@grimm.local.home>
References: <1426074547-21888-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com>
	<20150311081909.552e2052@grimm.local.home>
	<55003666.3020100@oracle.com>
	<20150311084034.04ce6801@grimm.local.home>
	<55004595.7020304@oracle.com>
	<20150311102636.6b4110a8@gandalf.local.home>
	<55005491.5080809@oracle.com>
	<20150311105210.1855c95e@gandalf.local.home>
	<550787E7.1030604@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Return-path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
In-Reply-To: <550787E7.1030604@oracle.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:48:23 -0400
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote:


> Steven,
> 
> 
> Since the only objection raised was the too-newiness of GCC 4.9.2/5.0, what
> would you consider a good time-line for removal?
> 
> I haven't heard any "over my dead body" objections, so I guess that trying
> to remove it while no distribution was shipping the compiler that would make
> it possible was premature.
> 
> Although, on the other hand, I'd be happy if we can have a reasonable date
> (that is before my kid goes to college), preferably even before the next
> LSF/MM so that we could have a mission accomplished thingie with a round
> of beers and commemorative t-shirts.

Perhaps give it 2 years? With fair notice that it will soon be gone?

In 2 years I should be up to gcc 4.9 ;-)

I still need to test it out.

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752534AbbCQCcb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:32:31 -0400
Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.226]:8865 "EHLO
	cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750852AbbCQCc3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:32:29 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:33:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kill kmemcheck
Message-ID: <20150316223318.02145751@grimm.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <550787E7.1030604@oracle.com>
References: <1426074547-21888-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com>
	<20150311081909.552e2052@grimm.local.home>
	<55003666.3020100@oracle.com>
	<20150311084034.04ce6801@grimm.local.home>
	<55004595.7020304@oracle.com>
	<20150311102636.6b4110a8@gandalf.local.home>
	<55005491.5080809@oracle.com>
	<20150311105210.1855c95e@gandalf.local.home>
	<550787E7.1030604@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:48:23 -0400
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote:


> Steven,
> 
> 
> Since the only objection raised was the too-newiness of GCC 4.9.2/5.0, what
> would you consider a good time-line for removal?
> 
> I haven't heard any "over my dead body" objections, so I guess that trying
> to remove it while no distribution was shipping the compiler that would make
> it possible was premature.
> 
> Although, on the other hand, I'd be happy if we can have a reasonable date
> (that is before my kid goes to college), preferably even before the next
> LSF/MM so that we could have a mission accomplished thingie with a round
> of beers and commemorative t-shirts.

Perhaps give it 2 years? With fair notice that it will soon be gone?

In 2 years I should be up to gcc 4.9 ;-)

I still need to test it out.

-- Steve