From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754286AbYAYCOZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:14:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752176AbYAYCOP (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:14:15 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:32925 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751295AbYAYCOO (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:14:14 -0500 Message-ID: <479945ED.7040007@davidnewall.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:44:05 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH for mm] Remove iBCS support References: <20080120055544.GB19861@one.firstfloor.org> <4792E8E2.1090307@davidnewall.com> <20080120072922.GA21047@one.firstfloor.org> <4793F775.6090403@davidnewall.com> <20080122111205.GA25090@elte.hu> <4796081A.7060505@davidnewall.com> <20080122160114.GB23277@does.not.exist> <4798C511.8070305@davidnewall.com> <20080124172414.GD4476@does.not.exist> <4798D10C.6090109@davidnewall.com> <20080124181442.GE4476@does.not.exist> In-Reply-To: <20080124181442.GE4476@does.not.exist> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:25:24AM +1030, David Newall wrote: > >> The performance benefit is trivial, and the improvement to >> maintainability is even less. >> > > The effects become bigger when you realize that there are many such > places in the kernel. > > And the benefit of keeping it is zero. > 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. > What you are doing is not contributing but wasting other people's time. > You want to remove the code so you attack me. Sadly for you, your personal taste is irrelevant to the benefit that I bring. What kind of a person considers robust debate to be a waste of time? A bit pathetic, sadly. > The only thing you could ever achieve with this kind of "contribution" > is to end up in some killfiles. > I'm comfortable with that. I'm also comfortable that consensus might go against me. This childish threat of kill-files is not going to stop me. >>>> At one stage iBCS2 support DID work. Now it doesn't. Now there's an >>>> argument that the remaining infrastructure should be removed. This is >>>> the wrong direction to take. >>>> >>>> >>> When did iBCS2 support work in a plain ftp.kernel.org kernel? >>> >>> >> I don't know when. Are you disputing that it ever did? I think it's a >> given that once it worked. >> > > AFAIK the kernel never shipped with iBCS2 support. > Are you claiming that it never did? Is that even important? Clearly there was support for it in the mainline kernel. Anecdotally the support worked. ... > The point is that ideas do not turn themselves into code. > This discussion is about removing code. That's a bit like tearing down the pergola because the vine has shrivelled. Easy to do, but counter-productive. LIkewise, removing iBCS2 code would be unproductive. It would achieve no benefit, whilst simultaneously leading Linux in the wrong direction. This is a point you have consistently failed to address. > And there are far too many people who want to see their great ideas > implemented without implementing it themselves. > This is not about a great idea. It's about a pointless idea. Even allowing what you say to be true, and it probably is, there is nothing wrong with somebody having a great idea and leaving it to others to implement. If the only people allowed to have great ideas were those who could implement them then the world would be a much poorer place. You demonstrate a twisted view of value. > Talking about a feature without having anyone willing to implement it > simply has no value. Who said nobody is willing to implement it? We've all recently learned that there is a patch. From there to implementation is much closer than you or I thought last week. So already this discussion has prompted tangible benefit.