[PATCH v3 0/2] KVM: ARM: Enable vtimers with user space gic
Alexander Graf
agraf at suse.de
Mon Sep 19 03:51:46 PDT 2016
On 16.09.16 15:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:31:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/2016 14:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>>> This patch set allows user space to receive vtimer events as well as mask
>>>>>> them, so that we can handle all vtimer related interrupt injection from user
>>>>>> space, enabling us to use architected timer with user space gic emulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already voiced my concerns in the past, including face to face,
>>>>> and I'm going to repeat it: I not keen at all on adding a new userspace
>>>>> interface that is going to bitrot extremely quickly.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have automated tests set up? It's not going to bitrot if you
>>>> test it, either with kvm-unit-tests or just by smoke-testing Linux.
>>>> It's _for_ the raspi, but it's not limited to it.
>>>
>>> Our automated testing situation is not great, no. Something we're
>>> looking at, but have resource problems with.
>>
>> But it's not a good reason to hold back a feature...
>>
>
> I didn't say that exactly, but choosing not to merge something we cannot
> maintain and which we're not paid to look after and where there's a
> minimal interest, is not entirely unreasonable.
>
> That being said, I'm not categorically against these patches, but I
> share Marc's view that we've already seen that non-vgic support had been
> broken for multiple versions without anyone complaining, and without
> automated testing or substantial interest in the work, the patches
> really are likely to bit-rot.
I know that it's very hard to grasp from an upstream maintainer
perspective, but keep in mind where the bulk of execution of kernel code
lies. The average life cycle of a "stable" Linux distribution's kernel
is a few years.
So far all regressions in the user space gic code have been found within
less than 1y of the respective code release. I'd say that counts for
quite a well used feature.
> But I haven't even looked at the patches in detail, I was just replying
> to the comment about testing.
Also keep in mind that without the architected timer support (and/or
without qemu patches than enable user space timers) the user space gic
support is pretty unusable to most people, so you obviously get less
reports.
Alex
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list