On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:51:46PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 16.09.16 15:30, Christoffer Dall wrote: [...] > > > > That being said, I'm not categorically against these patches, but I > > share Marc's view that we've already seen that non-vgic support had been > > broken for multiple versions without anyone complaining, and without > > automated testing or substantial interest in the work, the patches > > really are likely to bit-rot. > > I know that it's very hard to grasp from an upstream maintainer > perspective, pfff > but keep in mind where the bulk of execution of kernel code > lies. The average life cycle of a "stable" Linux distribution's kernel > is a few years. > > So far all regressions in the user space gic code have been found within > less than 1y of the respective code release. I'd say that counts for > quite a well used feature. > The only report I can think of about this was Pavel using an upstream kernel for in-house Samsung development on non-public hardware. But, again, I didn't look at the patches in detail yet, I'm not categorically against them, I will take a careful look at them like I do with all patches on the kvmarm list. There's a risk they'll break in mainline unless we sort out our testing story, and it may just be something we'll have to live with. > > But I haven't even looked at the patches in detail, I was just replying > > to the comment about testing. > > Also keep in mind that without the architected timer support (and/or > without qemu patches than enable user space timers) the user space gic > support is pretty unusable to most people, so you obviously get less > reports. > I don't disagree with this. I don't know what this has to do with the part of my mail you're replying to, but I completely agree that the current userspace irqchip support has limited value. -Christoffer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
