From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Mon Dec 2 17:08:36 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774C91B082B for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47RWm42fkdz45Wk for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 58FF91B082A; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C2C1B0829 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47RWm41dtRz45Wh; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-qk1-f174.google.com (mail-qk1-f174.google.com [209.85.222.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kevans) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FFE914842; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:08:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-qk1-f174.google.com with SMTP id i18so181768qkl.11; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:08:36 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVqEswtiNcYMJk8Od+D7gRKAOLqD1q6n0vS9CFUshXqnWzmDNVu C08oXH8rqgCNdk8VXeL5hbFV5RaR6a70LhEgqGA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9UiJt3WMXpSvZWPjh4XQr7I0qhJDf/5iXZvyl8Mhcd33qH7zX4PW1lgHsSdP5pBljm2Y0d2LSTVzpjdZzCzg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12cf:: with SMTP id e15mr4264932qkl.120.1575306515550; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:08:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9dff7246-e02a-28ff-939f-6d47882b982f@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9dff7246-e02a-28ff-939f-6d47882b982f@FreeBSD.org> From: Kyle Evans Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:08:23 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: rc(4) deprecation To: John Baldwin Cc: Warner Losh , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 17:08:36 -0000 On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:01 AM John Baldwin wrote: > > On 12/1/19 9:46 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:58 PM Kyle Evans wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:51 PM Kyle Evans wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> While we're in the process of deprecating stuff -- rc(4) [RISCom/8] > >>> seems like a good candidate; any objections? > >>> > >>> It still uses spltty and appears to be completely broken at > >>> compile-time, perhaps not updated past the ~'08 TTY revamp project? > >>> > >> > >> Ditto all of the above for cy(4) as well. > >> > > > > IIRC, I didn't remove cy years ago because bde asked me to hold off until > > he could get it converted... You might ask him how that went... > I actually removed cy(4) and then reverted it at bde's request. bde has > patches for both sio(4) (now gone) and cy(4) that he has sent me before, > but it just didn't bubble up in the priority list. :-/ > I'm not all that hell-bent on removing either of them- if there are patches in the wild that people use that we can eventually commit, this is good with me. I'm working on an effort to break apart the tty lock that would require a small amount of change to said patches to make it compatible. It sounds like cy(4) is much further away from a candidate for removal than rc(4). Thanks, Kyle Evans