[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & archit

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:09:51 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

On 16.03.2017 17:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 16:55, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> IOW, I think there is a reasonable 3 tier set here
>>>  1. Stuff we actively test builds & thus guarantee will work for
>>>     any QEMU release going forward.
>>>  2. Stuff we don't actively test, but generally assume is mostly
>>>     working, and likely to be fixed if & when problems are found
>>>  3. Stuff we don't actively test,  assume is probably broken
>>>     and unlikely to be fixed if reported
>>> Stuff in tier 3 should be candidate for deletion. Stuff in tier
>>> 2 shouldn't be removed, but it might drop into tier 3 at some
>>> point if people stop caring about fixing problems when found.
>>> Conversely tier 2 might rise to tier 1 if CI turns up.
>> I don't really want a tier 2. Either we support it enough
>> to at least be able to run "make && make check" on some
>> representative system, or we don't support it at all.
>> Code which we have but are really reluctant to touch because
>> we don't even test it builds (like bsd-user/) is really bad
>> for preventing cleanups.
> I think we should further differentiate between bsd-user/ and softmmu.
> System emulation is just another program where we mostly compile to C
> standard + POSIX or C standard + Win32.  There are certainly places
> where we use Linux-specific extensions but it's not that special.
> Neither BSD nor Solaris are particularly hard to support there.
> On the other hand, bsd-user is extremely BSD specific, and ought to have
> CI.  I think there should be a tier 2 for system emulation (which
> doesn't mean that anything there shouldn't be moved to tier 3 and
> eventually removed), but there shouldn't be a tier 2 for user-mode
> emulation.
> In particular, I believe that we should remove bsd-user from 2.10 unless
> the downstream BSD port is merged back (and CI is provided).  There is
> no point in keeping the current half-baked code without thread support.

I think you made a good point here.
So "+1" from my side to remove "bsd-user" and "tcg/ia64" in QEMU 2.10
or 2.11 (unless someone speaks up and provides maintainence, of course).

... and I think we should add a message to the configure script for 2.9
when somebody tries to use these subsystems, so that the removal does
not happen without warning first?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]