On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:43:23PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we
> made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest
> that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer
> From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt.
I'll try to make a wiki page next week..
> The 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4
> and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g.,
> xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and
> made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew's 2.6.29
> If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the 'suse
> port' / 'classic Xen patches' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we'd
> be happy to oblige.
Let's see.. I suggested/asked if Andrew wants to do that :)
> -- Keir
> On 30/06/2009 13:07, "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello!
> > Keir: What's the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the
> > new 'standard' for development and testing?
> > There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing
> > lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere..
> > I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0
> > kernel options, where to get them and how to use them.
> > I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they're still
> > easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user.
> > Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let
> > the
> > community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users
> > understand they're "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained?
> > All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0..
> > Just trying to think of all the confused users out there..
> > -- Pasi
Xen-devel mailing list