On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:32 PM Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:13 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > KVM/arm was merged just over 7 years ago, and has lived a very quiet > > life so far. It mostly works if you're prepared to deal with its > > limitations, it has been a good prototype for the arm64 version, > > but it suffers a few problems: > > > > - It is incomplete (no debug support, no PMU) > > - It hasn't followed any of the architectural evolutions > > - It has zero users (I don't count myself here) > > - It is more and more getting in the way of new arm64 developments > > > > So here it is: unless someone screams and shows that they rely on > > KVM/arm to be maintained upsteam, I'll remove 32bit host support > > form the tree. One of the reasons that makes me confident nobody is > > using it is that I never receive *any* bug report. Yes, it is perfect. > > But if you depend on KVM/arm being available in mainline, please shout. > > > > To reiterate: 32bit guest support for arm64 stays, of course. Only > > 32bit host goes. Once this is merged, I plan to move virt/kvm/arm to > > arm64, and cleanup all the now unnecessary abstractions. I think this makes a lot of sense: we are seeing fewer new 32-bit systems that have enough RAM to be a usable virtualization host, as most new boards with more than 1GB of RAM typically pick 64-bit SoCs, and on less than 1GB it gets awfully tight to do anything useful. > Since I'm generally happy to drop legacy code that has no users, with > the "if there are any significant users that speak up, I'll revoke my > support" caveat: > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> Same here Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
