From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FSL_HELO_FAKE,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02B5C2D0DB for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBEA2071A for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="L9ErBMyC" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3BBEA2071A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48A74AEC3; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:47 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@google.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlzlNJVzv3vw; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC6E4AF16; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8834A95D for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:45 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dH5oAutXVY8X for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (mail-wm1-f67.google.com [209.85.128.67]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E948A4ACD6 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:02:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id p17so1818472wmb.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:02:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=P//bELOAogzapLRAvc0MrTECr/vkbTdTXm/vZxUoi7A=; b=L9ErBMyCtJKb5ZEZYl3TmzU8EuI/xFUWYDF+VW9m90cvjhClhkYvKXe8R60FO1jApB myLg4r9b28I5Vc+4zNLsdEfYsQ9aWxkO/BdkYOuyV0Au5mSq/4JtRW7JFx3Q9S24CGvD 2Mt0W5leTE7dWl9zVcoVSRPAuGZBK0Oa9tvBEwzJWzXG5ls6izBvvc/iSVkBHUTOe1UN lVmz78njpXZZBYDF4uVoTiXQxlxnKtYYk/B3Bkv9edn4xJEHhsz8BwyM/v73POvMSl67 SKL+XWTPYoyrQQQ9G67iRS++pePFi6hYUxk0uCIipKFSOxIjcgoZK3kfOa46mExL59tk 73/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=P//bELOAogzapLRAvc0MrTECr/vkbTdTXm/vZxUoi7A=; b=iIqzAaNjGFTAVFIEdKyIE2SURZSeNBWQt4Hx4g9jYm62N93Y2czfGIe4N+I0g+8JlU eYUXYIs1WSZqIi8rYRj5InNKPiW2ioWtf//Kz16v/4SLfLgPWBu+drbbIRw5k6feGM86 K52Hf26SsUg6SciFB3KPRHHREOKXmu6wGKdToWFggLtiYkmXa/fXCJ5TAN3UK2uGw8UF xRcnAE9omtoe2//CVCiY7Qw36/ZFmTGh16vQIi9aaVdRQsjWKBJ2j/+ntISmgkxYs9WT GRreLRvo7mrt58FPkGPs+T2thk8gIoasTSy8yqtJein3OD8dl3gNL0QLz1UuTGpNbMNi +VcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUyPLmk+E7pyR5pVLAkyog0wO8sU2Mg3ndZ5y4c3swewqd7UeXQ /nxouzPBnPozDiSSQ/nXBbE1YA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwh++vgRWy9mDsoWvMlmUS3xeKplJZO2IFAv+YwFA/ve3hr0mvoCovh3TlbiktzN44VhH43YQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1b4d:: with SMTP id b74mr1475490wmb.33.1579874562635; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:d:110:d6cc:2030:37c1:9964]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o1sm7474771wrn.84.2020.01.24.06.02.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 06:02:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:02:37 +0000 From: Quentin Perret To: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] arm/arm64: add support for folded p4d page tables Message-ID: <20200124140237.GA180536@google.com> References: <20200113111323.10463-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20200122185017.GA17321@willie-the-truck> <20200124122053.GA150292@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: kernel-team@android.com, Anshuman Khandual , Catalin Marinas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mike Rapoport , Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Mike Rapoport X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 13:34:35 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote: > I don't disagree at all. To be honest, I've been on the cusp of getting > rid of it for a while, for multiple reasons: > > - It has no users (as you noticed) > - It is hardly tested (a consequence of the above) > - It isn't feature complete (no debug, no PMU) > - It doesn't follow any of the evolution of the architecture (a more > generic feature of the 32bit port, probably because people run their > 64bit-capable cores in 64bit mode) > - It is becoming a mess of empty stubs > > The maintenance aspect hasn't been a real problem so far. Even the NV > support is only about 200 lines of stubs. But what you have in mind is > going to be much more invasive, and I wouldn't want an unused feature to > get in the way. > > What I may end-up doing is to send a RFC series to remove the 32bit host > support from the tree during in the 5.6 cycle, targeting 5.7. If someone > shouts loudly during that time frame, we keep it and you'll have to work > around it. If nobody cares, then dropping it is the right thing to do. > > Would that be OK with you? Absolutely. And yes, if there are users of the 32 bits port, it'll be on us to work around in a clean way, but I think this is perfectly fair. I'll be happy to try and test your RFC series when it goes on the list if that can help. Thanks! Quentin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm