| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees
|
To: |
Dulloor <dulloor@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees |
|
From: |
Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:37:21 +0100 |
|
Accept-language: |
en-US |
|
Acceptlanguage: |
en-US |
|
Cc: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Ian, Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@xxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:38:07 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<940bcfd20906050705x67b51453h715e4d22c9caea61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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: |
<h0b67q$lsg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C64EDDF5.7916%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <940bcfd20906050705x67b51453h715e4d22c9caea61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
Acnl5upScY8yVUd+RXig4Oj827LJWAAASbPA |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees |
> 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.
One of the reasons cited for sticking on 2.6.18 was that it would hopefully
encourage folk to use pv_ops if they wanted anything more modern. I'm not sure
that worked out too well...
One argument for using 2.6.27 is that I believe it's the kernel used by SLES11,
so there should be good availability of drivers backported to it. It strikes me
it's not a bad plan to have two trees, one based off the latest stable
enterprise distro (in this case SLES11), and the pvops tree based off the
latest kernel.org release.
Ian
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home