Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:23:41 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] remove arch/sh?
Message-ID: <20190625142341.GA6948@lst.de>
References: <20190625085616.GA32399@lst.de> <ccfa78f3-35c2-1d26-98b5-b21a76b90e1e@physik.fu-berlin.de> <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190625142144.GC1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:21:44AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> I'm generally okay with all proposed non-functional changes that come
> up that are just eliminating arch-specific cruft to use new shared
> kernel infrastructure. I recall replying to a few indicating this, but
> I missed a lot more. If it would be helpful I think I can commit to
> doing at least this more consistently, but I'm happy to have other
> maintainers make that call too.

It woud be great if you could at least apply with a tentative ack.
At least for some trees we try very hard to get a maintainer ack,
so silence is holding things back to some extent.

I'd also like to second Arnds request to figure out if any bits
are truely dead.  E.g. 64-bit sh5 support very much appears so.