On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:44:30PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 1/1/07 12:21 am, "Rik van Riel" <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
> > to tracking the upstream kernel. I suspect they'll be
> > obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future,
> > because those will just be there in the upstream kernel
> > while Xen won't.
> >
> > If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
> > in the future, they'll want to seriously pursue an upstream
> > merge of their code.
>
> There are ongoing efforts from (at least) XenSource, Novell, Red Hat and IBM
> to merge Xen support into upstream Linux. The paravirt_ops infrastructure is
> already merged for 2.6.20 and we will hopefully see implementations of the
> new interface, including Xen, merged for 2.6.21.
>
> As for the Linux sparse tree in xen-unstable, it will be upgraded and moved
> to a separate repository before 3.0.5. With the guest kernel interfaces
> having been stable for some time, it makes lots of sense to separate
> hypervisor development and its release cycle from that of guest kernels.
When you say 'guest' kernel interfaces are you simply refering to DomU,
or also Dom0 ? Having a separate repository / tree which only did the
DomU kernel would be little use for Fedora, because we track the latest
upstream kernels for both Dom0 and DomU. So I'd hope the separate kernel
tree would cover Dom0 & DomU - is this what's planned ?
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home