Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753997AbZIRAxd (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:53:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753252AbZIRAxb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:53:31 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:38400 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752220AbZIRAxa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:53:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4AB2DA0D.8020606@goop.org> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:53:33 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Wright CC: Alok Kataria , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Rusty Russell , virtualization@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI]. References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090918003412.GI26034@sequoia.sous-sol.org> In-Reply-To: <20090918003412.GI26034@sequoia.sous-sol.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.97a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1297 Lines: 30 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? 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. J -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/