On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:09:51AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 16.03.2017 17:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > On 16/03/2017 16:55, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> IOW, I think there is a reasonable 3 tier set here > >>> > >>> 1. Stuff we actively test builds & thus guarantee will work for > >>> any QEMU release going forward. > >>> > >>> 2. Stuff we don't actively test, but generally assume is mostly > >>> working, and likely to be fixed if & when problems are found > >>> > >>> 3. Stuff we don't actively test, assume is probably broken > >>> and unlikely to be fixed if reported > >>> > >>> Stuff in tier 3 should be candidate for deletion. Stuff in tier > >>> 2 shouldn't be removed, but it might drop into tier 3 at some > >>> point if people stop caring about fixing problems when found. > >>> Conversely tier 2 might rise to tier 1 if CI turns up. > >> > >> I don't really want a tier 2. Either we support it enough > >> to at least be able to run "make && make check" on some > >> representative system, or we don't support it at all. > >> Code which we have but are really reluctant to touch because > >> we don't even test it builds (like bsd-user/) is really bad > >> for preventing cleanups. > > > > I think we should further differentiate between bsd-user/ and softmmu. > > System emulation is just another program where we mostly compile to C > > standard + POSIX or C standard + Win32. There are certainly places > > where we use Linux-specific extensions but it's not that special. > > Neither BSD nor Solaris are particularly hard to support there. > > > > On the other hand, bsd-user is extremely BSD specific, and ought to have > > CI. I think there should be a tier 2 for system emulation (which > > doesn't mean that anything there shouldn't be moved to tier 3 and > > eventually removed), but there shouldn't be a tier 2 for user-mode > > emulation. > > > > In particular, I believe that we should remove bsd-user from 2.10 unless > > the downstream BSD port is merged back (and CI is provided). There is > > no point in keeping the current half-baked code without thread support. > > I think you made a good point here. > So "+1" from my side to remove "bsd-user" and "tcg/ia64" in QEMU 2.10 > or 2.11 (unless someone speaks up and provides maintainence, of course).
In the mail thread two months back Sean Bruno did suggest he might like to just start over with bsd-user: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-01/msg00171.html So perhaps someone should just ping him to see if he objects to us deleting bsd-usr now (on off chance he's got patches nearly ready to fix it) Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
