Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 07/08/09 15:14, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:29:30AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> On 06/26/09 11:21, Tim Post wrote:
>>>> Is it possible for you to set up a blog just for this? I think many
>>>> people are just going to pull your tree, it would be really, really nice
>>>> to have a feed to pull so we know when to pull and update .. especially
>>>> when the next merge window closes.
>>>> As if you didn't have your hands full already :) Perhaps something on
>>>> xen.org just for kernel development?
>>>> Sorry if something like this already exists.
>>> No, its a good idea. I'll sort something out (and poke me if I don't
>>> appear to do anything in the next few days).
>> Btw what's the current tree people should be testing? xen-tip/next or
> rebase/master is what I'm currently working on. It's work-in-progress,
> but it works for me at the moment. I'd appreciate any test results you
> have. (I don't yet have a fix in there for your PAE issue however.)
> I'm planning on renaming these branches to xen/... and proposing they
> become the basis for ongoing work
Jeremy, I'm desperately trying to move to a more up to date Dom0 kernel
as I'm finding it increasing difficult to find motherboards that work
with the drivers in 2.6.18 (Sometimes I can get away with patching the
kernel, but even this is a very poor solution because it means a
development & release cycle everytime somebody tries a new motherboard).
I've been following your attempts to mainline Dom0 support, and hoped
this would be the solution to my problems, but now that's been postponed
I'm trying to find an alternative solution.
I need a stable kernel as this is for production systems, and wondered
if you (or anybody else) could advise the best route to take.
I'm aware that you're continuing to work on the mainline patches and
wondered if you intend to stablise things in the next few months to
allow a formal replacement of the 2.6.18 Dom0 kernel. You seemed to be
suggesting this, but I wasn't quite sure. I also got the impression that
your patches don't have all the features of the 2.6.18 kernel, but again
I wasn't quite sure if this was the case, and if it was, whether it
would be a problem for most people.
I'm also a aware of a thread started by Kier a month or two ago about
replacing the 2.6.18 kernel with one of the rebased kernels, but wasn't
clear what conclusion was reached.
Instinctively I'd prefer to go with your patches, but failing that could
you/somebody recommend one of the rebased kernels.
Xen-devel mailing list