Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees

[Dulloor <dulloor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Makes perfect sense to move over to pvops (in mainline) directly :
- Many of us have already used pvops-git and it works
- Other branches (2.6.27/29/30 or whatever) would be a single-chunk forward port, with more scope for latent bugs (and no long-term benefits).
- We anyway need to make pvops happen. The more we wait, greater will be the feature parity.
... and many more reasons.

Please make it happen !

-dulloor

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 05/06/2009 14:26, "Christian Tramnitz" <chris.ace@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Simple reason, there are so many fundamental changes in/before 2.6.29
> i.e. ext4 and in terms of video support (KMS, GEM) that anything before
> 2.6.29 (such as the 2.6.27 XCI tree) will be a waste of efforts if that
> will be the next tree that should have long-term (until pvops merges
> upstream, haha) support.

We don't need to wait for pv_ops to be merged. We just need it to have
near-enough feature parity. Actually now it supports HVM guests I'm tempted
to just move over to it. It would probably make sense to keep Jeremy as
gatekeeper for that tree, which will take some of his time. Otoh I'm not
sure spending 100% of your time banging your head against lkml is much fun.
:-)

Probably the major thing it's missing for a simple complete changeover is
ia64/Xen support. We could continue to point the ia64 build target at
linux-2.6.18-xen though.

 -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel