Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934241Ab3IDByk (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:54:40 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:50076 "EHLO mail-pd0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761693Ab3IDByi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 21:54:38 -0400 Message-ID: <52269297.5090208@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:53:27 +0800 From: Chen Gang F T User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck CC: Al Viro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , "David S. Miller" , Yoshinori Sato , Geert Uytterhoeven , Eric Paris , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiang Liu , David Howells , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Rothwell , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Rusty Russell , Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Drop support for Renesas H8/300 architecture References: <1377906694-9578-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <52254F11.8070601@gmail.com> <522556D8.803@roeck-us.net> <52255CF1.6020700@gmail.com> <20130903193938.GB13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130903205922.GA3372@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20130903205922.GA3372@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4011 Lines: 108 Thank you for your valuable information: it will let kernel waste mails less, and also can save my time resources. On 09/04/2013 04:59 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0800, Chen Gang F T wrote: >> >>> extreme sample: let 'kernel code style' and 'gcc code style' in one file, that will make the code very ugly. >> >> gcc style will make any code very ugly, no matter what (if anything) else is >> in the same file... >> Hmm... for me, I don't check/judge the 'coding style' of different products, what I focus on is to follow the original product 'coding style'. e.g. Windows, gcc, Linux kernel, their 'coding styles' are quite different with each other. Originally I worked under Windows, I followed Windows coding style. Now I worked under Linux kernel, I follow Linux kernel coding style. I plan to make patch for gcc, I will follow gcc coding style. (hope this month I can, but I am not sure, I have no experience for gcc development). And excuse me, I will be silent during 2013-09-05 - 2013-09-20 (but can response mail). During these days, I will focus on gcc issues (wish can fix one), and also do some company's internal things. Thanks. >> [digs out the ports history table] >> x86: 0.01 [alive] >> i386: 0.01..2.6.24-rc1 [folded into x86] >> x86_64: 2.5.5-pre1..2.6.24-rc1 [folded into x86] >> x86: 2.6.24-rc1 [alive] >> alpha: 1.1.67 [alive] >> sparc: 1.1.77 [alive] >> sparc64: 2.1.19..2.6.28 [folded into sparc] >> mips: 1.1.82 [alive] >> mips64: 2.3.48-pre2..2.6.0-test2 [folded into mips] >> powerpc: 1.3.45 [alive] >> ppc: 1.3.45..2.6.26 [folded into powerpc] >> ppc64: 2.5.5..2.6.15-rc1 [folded into powerpc] >> powerpc: 2.6.15-rc1 [alive] >> m68k: 1.3.94 [alive] >> m68knommu: 2.5.46..2.6.38 [folded into m68k] >> arm: 2.1.80 [alive] >> arm26: 2.5.71..2.6.23-rc2 [gone] >> arm64: 3.7-rc1 [alive][might eventually fold] >> sh: 2.3.16 [alive] >> sh64: 2.6.8-rc1..2.6.24 [folded into sh, nearly dead there] >> ia64: 2.3.43-pre1 [alive] >> s390: 2.3.99pre8 [alive] >> s390x: 2.5.0..2.5.67 [folded into s390] >> parisc: 2.4.0-test12 [alive] >> cris: 2.5.0 [alive] >> um: 2.5.35 [alive] >> v850: 2.5.46..2.6.26 [gone] >> h8300: 2.5.68 [moderately responsive] >> m32r: 2.6.9-rc3 [alive] >> frv: 2.6.11-rc1 [alive] >> xtensa: 2.6.13-rc1 [alive] >> avr32: 2.6.19-rc1 [alive] >> blackfin: 2.6.22-rc1 [alive] >> mn10300: 2.6.25-rc1 [alive] >> microblaze: 2.6.30-rc2 [alive] >> score: 2.6.32-rc1 [abandoned][cloned off mips] >> tile: 2.6.36-rc1 [alive] >> unicore32: 2.6.39-rc1 [alive][cloned off arm] >> openrisc: 3.1-rc1 [alive] >> hexagon: 3.2-rc1 [alive] >> c6x: 3.3-rc1 [alive] >> arc: 3.9-rc1 [alive] >> metag: 3.9-rc1 [alive] >> >> Frankly, I would've expected score and lefotvers of sh64 (aka sh5) to be >> the first against the wall - h8300 was a bit surprising... >> > > Great summary. > > There seemed to be a consensus to remove h8300, at least so far and sufficiently > enough for me to ask Stephen to add the removal branch to linux-next. > We'll see if that triggers any further responses. > > With score, I am not entirely sure. I got one Ack for the removal, but > on the other side the score maintainers came back and claimed they would > still support it. We'll see if anything changes in practice. I am still > not sure if I should ask for the removal branch to be added to linux-next. > Frankly I thought I might jump the gun here more than with h8300. > > Either case, what to ultimately do with those two architectures will be > up to the community to decide. > > Guenter > Thanks again. -- Chen Gang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/