[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds
Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:56:28 -0500
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.6
On 08/17/2010 01:38 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
But if the features aren't being used by anyone and they consistently don't
work, does it matter?
No, but semi-actively breaking things that work now is different from
removing obsolete or never to be finished features.
I think my point is that Win32 is a "never to be finished feature".
Every time I've ever tried to use it, it's a short period of time before
it seg faults. I have a hard time believing that anyone is using it
. There have been very few patches
for Darwin, *Solaris, AIX or BSDs, non-x86 targets or non-x86 host
CPUs. Without Darwin or BSD host support, darwin-user and bsd-user
will be useless. When did we get Xen patches last time before the
recent patch set?
Let's put things in perspective though. Win32 support has been in bad shape
for years and no one really seems to care. It's been sorely behind since
at least when Fabrice introduced AIO support for Linux without ever doing it
properly in Windows.
If Paolo's Win32 threads get merged, would there be other reasons
against continuing Win32 support?
I think a better question would be, should we even bother with thread
wrappers? If we drop win32 support, we can just assume pthreads and
avoid a layer of indirection.
TBH, I think dropping kqemu resulted in the last few win32 users moving on
to something else.
This would also apply to all x86 operating systems without KVM, like
*BSD, *Solaris and Darwin/x86 and it would also mean that TCG is
useless on x86. But nobody has stepped up as kqemu maintainer, which
supports your argument.
I disagree. There are quite a lot more patches and features written for
these systems than Win32. With the exception of Darwin, at least the
other Unices are close enough to Linux that the work to support them is
We ought to separately consider features that are isolated and features that
are invasive. For something like VMDK or VVFAT, there's very little burden
that the rest of the code base endures simply by the code existing.
I haven't ever used them. Do they even work?
Yes. vmdk gets a reasonable amount of attention because of it's
usefulness in qemu-img. vvfat is black magic but it works reasonably
well in read-only mode. When it breaks, people complain quickly.
Win32 seems to be a constant source of pain though.
Similar pains come from any portability to non-Linux OS (or older GCCs
that don't support threads), although smaller.
Yes. Much, much smaller pains.
But I'm not completely against this. Maybe we should make a list of
features and check which of those work. Features which don't pass are
scheduled for deprecation or removal.
Yes, I think this is exactly what we need to do.
Even better would be to check all features with for example autotest.
Automated testing would also benefit from narrowed feature set.
At least major features should have a named maintainer as well.
Yes. I think we have a lot of dump-and-run features in QEMU whereas
someone writes the patches to implement something and then disappears.
Often time, the feature is not generally useful so the code just rots.
I think an awful lot of the PPC boards and devices also fall into this
Considering that we're well over half a million lines of code today, I
think we would do ourselves a favor by dropping some of the dead
features we're carrying.
If nonfunctional features were also removed, QEMU would be feature
complete and bug-free so we could release a 1.0 version. ;-)
Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Andreas Färber, 2010/08/14
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Unmaintained QEMU builds, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/15
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Unmaintained QEMU builds, Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Blue Swirl, 2010/08/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/16
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Kevin Wolf, 2010/08/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Anthony Liguori, 2010/08/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Blue Swirl, 2010/08/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, malc, 2010/08/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds,
Anthony Liguori <=
- [Qemu-devel] Re: Unmaintained QEMU builds, Paolo Bonzini, 2010/08/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Unmaintained QEMU builds, Alexander Graf, 2010/08/18