On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:44:05 +1030, David Newall said:

> The benefit is not zero.  Repeating myself: While the code is there, it
> encourages either removal or repair.  If the option to remove is taken
> off the table then it will eventually be repaired.

Well, if the 2.4 version hasn't been ported by 2.6.24, maybe we'll check
back in *another* 4 years when we're up to 2.6.48.  There's a limit to
how much "eventually" we should drag along.

We (especially Adrian) remove stuff from the kernel *all the time* with the
notation "If anybody wants to get this hook back, it's easy enough to re-add it
when an actual user shows up".  I don't see why iBCS should be treated any
differently.