On 5/8/26 11:19 AM, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 11:07:28AM -0400, Jagannathan Raman wrote:

On 5/8/26 10:37 AM, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 02:33:59PM +0000, Jag Raman wrote:

QEMU maintainers can correct me, but I'd think it has to go through a
deprecation cycle first?
If the code has to soak in a deprecated state, I think an “Obsolete” status
better fits it as it’s replaced by vfio-user.
Are you saying you and/or Elena are still maintaining the vfio-user
implementation in hw/remote ? As I don't think there's anything happening there
either.
The vfio-user implementation is the server part of the vfio-user client and it
utilizes the x-remote machine object. I do maintain it - I proposed a fix to
bug last week and reviewed an alternative proposal from Marc-Andre.
When I was asking you about mpqemu, I was talking about all of hw/remote, not
just the legacy backend. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

I think "S: Odd Fixes" is more appropriate (see below).
Reclassifying the status as "Odd Fixes" is accurate.

There's no active development on it due to a lack of inbound feature requests.
Are you looking for any specific features?
Confused by this comment, as we've discussed before several times that you were
going to migrate the testing across to vfio-user instead of the legacy protocol,
then remove the legacy protocol altogether.

Then no patches arrived, so I presume that's not going to happen.

My employer's resource allocation has de-prioritized this. So, I'll do this during my personal time.

I'll focus on these two items during this weekend. Do you need anything else?


If you want to bring the maintenance of this under your purview, I'm OK with
I don't have cycles/interest for this unfortunately.


How about the following:

1) mark the whole subsystem as Odd Fixes

2) mark the legacy backend as Obsolete

3) if we don't see any further work on converting mpqemu over to vfio-user
properly over, say, the next calendar year, then remove the whole feature.

The above strategy sounds good to me.

Thanks!


regards
john

Reply via email to