On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 13:34:35 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote: > I don't disagree at all. To be honest, I've been on the cusp of getting > rid of it for a while, for multiple reasons: > > - It has no users (as you noticed) > - It is hardly tested (a consequence of the above) > - It isn't feature complete (no debug, no PMU) > - It doesn't follow any of the evolution of the architecture (a more > generic feature of the 32bit port, probably because people run their > 64bit-capable cores in 64bit mode) > - It is becoming a mess of empty stubs > > The maintenance aspect hasn't been a real problem so far. Even the NV > support is only about 200 lines of stubs. But what you have in mind is > going to be much more invasive, and I wouldn't want an unused feature to > get in the way. > > What I may end-up doing is to send a RFC series to remove the 32bit host > support from the tree during in the 5.6 cycle, targeting 5.7. If someone > shouts loudly during that time frame, we keep it and you'll have to work > around it. If nobody cares, then dropping it is the right thing to do. > > Would that be OK with you? Absolutely. And yes, if there are users of the 32 bits port, it'll be on us to work around in a clean way, but I think this is perfectly fair. I'll be happy to try and test your RFC series when it goes on the list if that can help. Thanks! Quentin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
