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). ... and I think we should add a message to the configure script for 2.9 when somebody tries to use these subsystems, so that the removal does not happen without warning first? Thomas
