Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755075AbZIRBES (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:04:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753760AbZIRBEQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:04:16 -0400 Received: from sous-sol.org ([216.99.217.87]:49232 "EHLO sequoia.sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753600AbZIRBEP (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:04:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:58:08 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Chris Wright , 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]. Message-ID: <20090918005808.GJ26034@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <1253233028.19731.63.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090918003412.GI26034@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <4AB2DA0D.8020606@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AB2DA0D.8020606@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1582 Lines: 37 * Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@goop.org) wrote: > 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? True. I'm all for removing code that's got no planned maintenance and no place to run ;-) > 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. Yeah. Different than normal deprecation since it's atop VMware's HV which is all in their domain. thanks, -chris -- 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/