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] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter"

To: Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter"
From: Liwei <xieliwei@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:20:09 +0800
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:21:06 -0700
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=cyZ9wvs4JWaRITFGb/GZGsbgIARm9JLZ1F/N4ldjJWM=; b=OH5GGSdwUcQ0q8p3SKS4sK5vNl70oqNkglsDO8tMCl7YVPxHjqslPD+40mB3wHKiDH ZDmaSSGFQSdjDhzPGizikw0YAu3E0310oWScT8kx4frznWQ6aovvq/HG6k1KG/idIgig AfnO0mrCgQrH218lJpdiRUQB+SzX9toqsW9Ig=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <8caaa867-5021-4bab-aa48-5eda431c1251@default>
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>
References: <8caaa867-5021-4bab-aa48-5eda431c1251@default>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 29 June 2011 22:23, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ----- xieliwei@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hmm, I've always wondered, which would be a better choice for a Dom0
>> kernel? I've always thought Jeremy's and yours would be better since
>> they have xen specific patches/bug fixes. Is there a reason to favour
> We have "earlier" patches. Meaning the #master branches has patches
> that are going to be in proposed for 3.1. So you get the extra fancy stuff 
> before it is
> integrated in the vanilla.
>> the vanilla kernels?
> Mostly just separation of patches. The "extra fancy stuff" could bring in
> bugs so if you use the vanilla kernel you would not trip over them.
> And the #master in my case did have some extra fancy stuff in the Xen PCI - so
> I was trying to isolate whether the issue you were tripping over was the fault
> of the new code or something that has been in there since 2.6.37. It was the 
> latter.
> Besides that - in the past we had a backlog of patches to make Xen work 
> nicely -
> but almost all (except the #stable/vga.support) are in the upstream kernel.
> So it is more of "stable" (vanilla) vs "development" (our #master or 
> #devel/next-3.0
> branches).

Alright, understood. Thanks for explaining!

>> Sweet! The patch works perfectly and I've upgraded to 3.0 and the
> Great. Is it OK if I stick 'Tested-by:' on the patch?

I have only two systems to test on and didn't really do any
complicated testing other than load testing and verifying that the
correct IRQ number for SCI is used, but the patch is a simple and
straightforward one, so I guess if you're okay with it, I'm okay too.

Xen-devel mailing list

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