On 2/27/23 23:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:21:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's
one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems,
and the maintainance overhead is quite
On 28/2/23 09:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:21:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2/27/23 10:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
i686
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:34:19PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> If it's not worth arguing, then we merge Thomas's patch.
I don't mind but it's just a doc patch isn't it? If what we want to do
is to stop doing make check on a 32 bit container and just to do
make then let's patch the relevant
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:39:39AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The question to answer: Is 32 bit x86 worth its upkeep? Two
>> sub-questions: 1. Is it worth the human attention? 2. Is it worth
>> (scarce!) CI minutes?
>
> 3. Is it worth arguing about?
If
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:24:02AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:12:22PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 28/02/2023 11.51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:39:39AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > > The question to answer: Is 32 bit
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:12:22PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 11.51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:39:39AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > The question to answer: Is 32 bit x86 worth its upkeep? Two
> > > sub-questions: 1. Is it worth the human
On 28/02/2023 11.51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:39:39AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
The question to answer: Is 32 bit x86 worth its upkeep? Two
sub-questions: 1. Is it worth the human attention? 2. Is it worth
(scarce!) CI minutes?
3. Is it worth arguing about?
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:39:39AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> The question to answer: Is 32 bit x86 worth its upkeep? Two
> sub-questions: 1. Is it worth the human attention? 2. Is it worth
> (scarce!) CI minutes?
3. Is it worth arguing about?
--
MST
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:40:49AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:14:52AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> > On 28/02/2023 10.03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> > >
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:40:49AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:14:52AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 28/02/2023 10.03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:14:52AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 10.03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM
On 28/02/2023 10.03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:21:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's
> > one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems,
> > and the maintainance overhead is quite small.
>
> It's not that small.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > I feel like we should have
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:21:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2/27/23 10:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
> > > i686 host support, and for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
> > > i686 host support, and for
On 27/02/2023 21.25, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 2/27/23 01:50, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:10:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
Hardly anybody still uses 32-bit x86 hosts today, so we should
start deprecating them to finally have less test efforts.
With regards to 32-bit
On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
although they're related they are independant
On 27/02/2023 23.32, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 27/2/23 21:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
On 27/2/23 21:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
although they're related they are independant features
On 2/27/23 01:50, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:10:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
Hardly anybody still uses 32-bit x86 hosts today, so we should
start deprecating them to finally have less test efforts.
With regards to 32-bit KVM support in the x86 Linux kernel,
the
On 2/27/23 10:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
although they're related they are independant features
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the
> i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as
> although they're related they are independant features with
> differing impact. eg removing
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:10:49PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Hardly anybody still uses 32-bit x86 hosts today, so we should
> start deprecating them to finally have less test efforts.
> With regards to 32-bit KVM support in the x86 Linux kernel,
> the developers confirmed that they do not need a
Hardly anybody still uses 32-bit x86 hosts today, so we should
start deprecating them to finally have less test efforts.
With regards to 32-bit KVM support in the x86 Linux kernel,
the developers confirmed that they do not need a recent
qemu-system-i386 binary here:
26 matches
Mail list logo
