* Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 09/17/09 17:34, Chris Wright wrote: > >> One of the options that I am contemplating is to drop the code from the > >> tip tree in this release cycle, and given that this should be a low risk > >> change we can remove it from Linus's tree later in the merge cycle. > >> > >> Let me know your views on this or if you think we should do this some > >> other way. > >> > > Typically we give time measured in multiple release cycles > > before deprecating a feature. This means placing an entry in > > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt, and potentially > > adding some noise to warn users they are using a deprecated > > feature. > > That's true if the feature has some functional effect on users. But at > first sight, VMI is really just an optimisation, and a non-VMI-equipped > kernel would be completely functionally equivalent, right? True. I'm all for removing code that's got no planned maintenance and no place to run ;-) > On the other hand, there could well be a performance regression which > could affect users. However they're taking the explicit step of > withdrawing support for VMI, so I guess they can just take that in their > stride. Yeah. Different than normal deprecation since it's atop VMware's HV which is all in their domain. thanks, -chris _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
