Re: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4

To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3
From:	Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sat, 8 May 2010 04:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	"xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, M A Young <m.a.young@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Florian Wagner <f_wagner@xxxxxxxxxx>, XiantaoZhang <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Sat, 08 May 2010 04:01:11 -0700
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1273316401; bh=6XpVNqWBsWc/sGOAqrCAlbRkH3kydWntRPCiGMFYLh0=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A97N34xxRjBsqSvzg8j1ywvY/qdJcQRgdFXHXa8NOtBG+o4QjtY05r8IXaUUy/eFB6ODeW4o9x9cQVrQtTclwKF8/I+MuJSwS4M2Y743wV8LcdRw7hfLKwli7L4MUFfOp5EIrWd6K0cn7phnipLUovBSBQ99+V8o4Ai5Bmy7Ud4=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=zKLFBNENI1vmWLZjv9L5mBwSXihhFxST52Nuha7/3BYSD1Nw7nKk7P+W4LLBCvsSJq1lDMqmqWAmrB1hOUSiwiOGxesyw9ZO0Vx6bXumSXO/ElhfVFvJpJ9PKupkcMZy913v5f99KKaNKkwJ82b2kuM8BjrXWRC424B6pGCZGQk=;
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<C80AD9DE.13B81%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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

I believe 3.4.3 stable release would make sense only supporting 2.6.32.12 pvops.
Otherwise, you already have 3.4.2. Maybe you care about xenified aka Suse kernels
It would be different concern.

Boris.

--- On Sat, 5/8/10, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3
To: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
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>
Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 4:05 AM

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

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

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