[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & archit
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:52:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 |
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.
Paolo
- [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Peter Maydell, 2017/03/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Daniel P. Berrange, 2017/03/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures,
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Thomas Huth, 2017/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Daniel P. Berrange, 2017/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Peter Maydell, 2017/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Thomas Huth, 2017/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Peter Maydell, 2017/03/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2017/03/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Peter Maydell, 2017/03/17
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Eric Blake, 2017/03/21
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Gerd Hoffmann, 2017/03/16
Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for deprecating unsupported host OSes & architecutures, Daniel P. Berrange, 2017/03/16