Xen devel - Sep 2012 - [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of life after 4.2

Folks,

With 64-bit support well established in the x86 world these days, the number
of x86 production environments that cannot run a 64-bit hypervisor is pretty
much nil. Maintaining the 32-bit x86 port, and implementing new features for
it, is an ongoing development burden which could be more usefully directed
elsewhere. Therefore, 32-bit x86 will be considered obsolete in the 4.3
development branch, and removed.

32-bit x86 will continue to be maintained and supported (insofar as it has
been recently) in the supported stable branches: 3.4, 4.1, and 4.2.

Furthermore, 32-bit guests (including 32-bit PV guests) will continue to be
supported on the 64-bit hypervisor, as they always have been.

 Regards,
 Keir & The Xen Team

On 09/09/2012 12:11, "Keir Fraser" <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> With 64-bit support well established in the x86 world these days, the
number
> of x86 production environments that cannot run a 64-bit hypervisor is
pretty
> much nil. Maintaining the 32-bit x86 port, and implementing new features
for
> it, is an ongoing development burden which could be more usefully directed
> elsewhere. Therefore, 32-bit x86 will be considered obsolete in the 4.3
> development branch, and removed.
Ian,

Please can you remove x86_32 from the automated tests for xen-unstable?

 Thanks,
 Keir
> 32-bit x86 will continue to be maintained and supported (insofar as it has
> been recently) in the supported stable branches: 3.4, 4.1, and 4.2.
> 
> Furthermore, 32-bit guests (including 32-bit PV guests) will continue to be
> supported on the 64-bit hypervisor, as they always have been.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Keir & The Xen Team
> 
>

Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of life
after 4.2"):
> Please can you remove x86_32 from the automated tests for xen-unstable?
I will do this but I have a number of other things which need to go
through the autotester''s tests of itself, first.  I''ll let you
know
when it''s done.

Thanks,
Ian.

On 10/09/2012 15:16, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:
> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of
life
> after 4.2"):
>> Please can you remove x86_32 from the automated tests for xen-unstable?
> 
> I will do this but I have a number of other things which need to go
> through the autotester''s tests of itself, first.  I''ll
let you know
> when it''s done.
A self-aware autotester. :)

Well that''s fine. It doesn''t have to be done in a huge hurry.

 Thanks,
 Keir
> Thanks,
> Ian.

On 09/09/12 12:11, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> With 64-bit support well established in the x86 world these days, the
number
> of x86 production environments that cannot run a 64-bit hypervisor is
pretty
> much nil. Maintaining the 32-bit x86 port, and implementing new features
for
> it, is an ongoing development burden which could be more usefully directed
> elsewhere. Therefore, 32-bit x86 will be considered obsolete in the 4.3
> development branch, and removed.
I have some tracing patches that have some 32-bit/64-bit #ifdef''ery.
Would you prefer them posted now, or deferred until 32-bit is gone?

David

On 10/09/2012 17:24, "David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
wrote:
> On 09/09/12 12:11, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> With 64-bit support well established in the x86 world these days, the
number
>> of x86 production environments that cannot run a 64-bit hypervisor is
pretty
>> much nil. Maintaining the 32-bit x86 port, and implementing new
features for
>> it, is an ongoing development burden which could be more usefully
directed
>> elsewhere. Therefore, 32-bit x86 will be considered obsolete in the 4.3
>> development branch, and removed.
> 
> I have some tracing patches that have some 32-bit/64-bit
#ifdef''ery.
> Would you prefer them posted now, or deferred until 32-bit is gone?
If it''s not too intricate then post them now, and we''ll strip
out the 32-bit
parts later. I don''t think we should hold up pending patches for this.
Although I''m holding back some further development in anticipation of
it. :)

 -- Keir
> David

Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of life
after 4.2"):
> On 10/09/2012 15:16, "Ian Jackson"
<Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > I will do this but I have a number of other things which need to go
> > through the autotester''s tests of itself, first. 
I''ll let you know
> > when it''s done.
> 
> A self-aware autotester. :)
As you say.
> Well that''s fine. It doesn''t have to be done in a huge
hurry.
I''ve been looking into this and have a draft of a suitable change.
But: can you confirm that typing "make" will still work on a 32-bit
system and generate a working tools build ?  I don''t care what
hypervisor (if any) it builds, but it has to succeed because that''s
how I build the tools for use in 32-bit dom0s.

Ian.

On 10/09/2012 18:09, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:
> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of
life
> after 4.2"):
>> On 10/09/2012 15:16, "Ian Jackson"
<Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> I will do this but I have a number of other things which need to go
>>> through the autotester''s tests of itself, first. 
I''ll let you know
>>> when it''s done.
>> 
>> A self-aware autotester. :)
> 
> As you say.
> 
>> Well that''s fine. It doesn''t have to be done in a
huge hurry.
> 
> I''ve been looking into this and have a draft of a suitable change.
> But: can you confirm that typing "make" will still work on a
32-bit
> system and generate a working tools build ?  I don''t care what
> hypervisor (if any) it builds, but it has to succeed because
that''s
> how I build the tools for use in 32-bit dom0s.
You want ''make'' at the root Makefile to build successfully? If
so we can
stub out 32-bit hypervisor only either in that Makefile, or xen/Makefile.
> Ian.

Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of life
after 4.2"):
> On 10/09/2012 18:09, "Ian Jackson"
<Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > I''ve been looking into this and have a draft of a suitable
change.
> > But: can you confirm that typing "make" will still work on a
32-bit
> > system and generate a working tools build ?  I don''t care
what
> > hypervisor (if any) it builds, but it has to succeed because
that''s
> > how I build the tools for use in 32-bit dom0s.
> 
> You want ''make'' at the root Makefile to build
successfully? If so we can
> stub out 32-bit hypervisor only either in that Makefile, or xen/Makefile.
That would be best for me.  I think it would be best for users too.
Maybe you would like to leave a xen-blah.README in dist/install/boot.

Ian.

On 11/09/2012 11:27, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
wrote:
> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [ANNOUNCE] Xen x86 32-bit hypervisor end of
life
> after 4.2"):
>> On 10/09/2012 18:09, "Ian Jackson"
<Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>> I''ve been looking into this and have a draft of a suitable
change.
>>> But: can you confirm that typing "make" will still work
on a 32-bit
>>> system and generate a working tools build ?  I don''t care
what
>>> hypervisor (if any) it builds, but it has to succeed because
that''s
>>> how I build the tools for use in 32-bit dom0s.
>> 
>> You want ''make'' at the root Makefile to build
successfully? If so we can
>> stub out 32-bit hypervisor only either in that Makefile, or
xen/Makefile.
> 
> That would be best for me.  I think it would be best for users too.
> Maybe you would like to leave a xen-blah.README in dist/install/boot.
Okay, I''ll stub out in xen/Makefile and install something into
dist/install/boot.

>>> On 11.09.12 at 12:44, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> Okay, I''ll stub out in xen/Makefile and install something into
> dist/install/boot.
If you''re already in the process of doing this, may I ask that you
please don''t remove xen/arch/x86/cpu/centaur.c (as a pending
patch of mine will make use of this for properly enabling 64-bit
support on VIA CPUs)?

Jan

On 11/09/2012 11:51, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11.09.12 at 12:44, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
>> Okay, I''ll stub out in xen/Makefile and install something into
>> dist/install/boot.
> 
> If you''re already in the process of doing this, may I ask that you
> please don''t remove xen/arch/x86/cpu/centaur.c (as a pending
> patch of mine will make use of this for properly enabling 64-bit
> support on VIA CPUs)?
I''m waiting for the okay from IanJ before I start. And, okay, I
won''t remove
centaur.c. I will probably just do a rough prune to start with anyway, then
others can go in and help finish the job off.

 -- Keir
> Jan
>