From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 10 20:48:55 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0741F106566B; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:48:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (wollman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:ccb::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03A78FC17; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4AKmrYN028077; Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4AKmrie028076; Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <201105102048.p4AKmrie028076@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: kmacy@freebsd.org X-Newsgroups: mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch In-Reply-To: References: Organization: none X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (hergotha.csail.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 10 May 2011 16:48:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on hergotha.csail.mit.edu Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dropping sun4v as a platform X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 20:48:55 -0000 In article you write: >I volunteered to remove it from the tree some time back knowing that I >wouldn't have the time to work on it and that no one else had the >inclination to pick it up. Keep in mind that removing it doesn't bar >someone from bringing back support at some time in the future, it just >removes the misconception that it is in some way supported. On the other hand, it's a sufficiently weird platform in various ways that having FreeBSD at least be compile-tested on it from time to time is not a bad thing. Newer manycore architectures are likely to be more similar to sun4v on many ways than they are to amd64. On the gripping hand, if there are not enough interested people to maintain the platform, then there probably won't be enough interested people to fix the compile when it breaks, either. -GAWollman