Hi Quentin,
On 2020-01-24 12:20, Quentin Perret wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Wednesday 22 Jan 2020 at 18:56:38 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote:
But maybe this is the reason we've all been waiting for, for which we
sacrifice 32bit KVM host on the altar of progress, and finally move
along.
Will and I are the only known users, and that'd be a good incentive to
experience some if this 64bit goodness... ;-)
[future work for which 32bit support gets in the way]
This would a be perfectly reasonable and acceptable overhead if this
had
to be done to keep 32bit KVM host support for a real user community,
but
since it doesn't seem to exist (?), fighting with the above options
feels like a lot of wasted efforts. (Note: I am not implying that Will
and you are not real persons, but well, you see what I mean ;-)).
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?
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
