On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:42:31 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 2 June 2015 at 16:32, Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 May 2015 16:41:01 +0300 > > Pavel Fedin <p.fe...@samsung.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello! > >> > >> > Well KVM side should be fixed instead of driving us along wrong route. > >> > >> It can be fixed... Perhaps... If kernel developers acknowledge this is a > >> problem, which > >> might not happen. > >> But still we will have older kernels, and what? Don't you want 64-bit ARM > >> KVM work on > >> them? > > I think arm target is not counted as stable yet, so we don't have to keep > > compatibility layer yet. > > We don't want to break running KVM on older kernels on ARM. > It's OK if an older kernel means you don't get access to shiny > new features (like GICv3 support, maybe), but QEMU binaries > and configurations that used to work on those kernels should > continue to work on those kernels. perhaps we would need to start using machine types then like we do for x86 or something like this. > > thanks > -- PMM
