linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] MIPS: Retire kvm paravirt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200716125928.GA12483@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:59:28 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] MIPS: Retire kvm paravirt

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:30:16PM +0800, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> paravirt machine was introduced for Cavium's partial virtualization
> technology, however, it's host side support and QEMU support never
> landed in upstream.
> 
> As Cavium was acquired by Marvel and they have no intention to maintain
> their MIPS product line, also paravirt is unlikely to be utilized by
> community users, it's time to retire it if nobody steps in to maintain
> it.

I've fine deleting it. I'll wait a few more days before applying this patch.
So if anybody wants to keep it, speak up now.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]