This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 09:05:34 +0100
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Florian Wagner <f_wagner@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>, M A Young <m.a.young@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sat, 08 May 2010 01:06:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4BE49E3F.7080608@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcruOrU7qYaY6kH3SYuVeIjPZNkzsAASobj0
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 08/05/2010 00:11, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> As I know, you have to backport extra Csets like 28089, 21092, and 21161
>>> from
>>> xen-unstable.hg to make it work well with latest pv_ops kernel except the
>>> Csets Keir had indicated.
>> Doesn't sound like 3.4.3 is going to support pv_ops then.
> Florian and M A Young have reported success with 3.4.3-rc, so it isn't
> completely non-functional.  How essential are those changes?   28089
> doesn't appear in my tree ("abort: unknown revision '28089'"), but 21092
> ("Allow all unused GSI to be configured via IO-APIC by new pv_ops dom0")
> and 21161 ("Make c/s 21089 work again with c/s 21092") both look pertient.

I doubt anyone is running pv_ops dom0 in serious production uses yet. So I'm
not sure backporting this sort of stuff to our very stable branch is really
necessary. Anyone running pv_ops dom0 is likely not scared of Xen 4.0.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>