>>> On 14.09.10 at 11:12, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 15:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 13.09.10 at 16:14, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Which tree are you intending for this (and the other kernel patches you
>> > sent recently) to be applied to?
>>
>> Oh, right, for this one it isn't obvious from the paths. They're all for
>> the 2.6.18 one, in an attempt to at least avoid carrying patches of
>> our own where they can easily be made apply to what we derive
>> our tree from.
>
> Ah, I hadn't realised anyone still cared about updating the 2.6.18-xen
> tree so it didn't occur to me.
How would we (and even you) not care? There's now newer tree
available that can serve as an input (in some cases we can pull
fixes from the pv-ops tree, but that's not the normal case). Even
your XCP tree (indirectly) depends on the 2.6.18 one, as you
derive it from ours (and hence we can't reasonably use it as a
replacement source). With pv-ops continuing to be (somewhat?)
experimental, I have always been wishing we could get to a point
where we'd have a more modern baseline tree, but I don't really
have any hope for such.
Nor can I foresee when the pv-ops tree will be reliable enough
and sufficiently functionally complete (without hacks that in
some cases I think are worse than those in the 2.6.18 tree) to
be used as the basis of an enterprise Dom0 (which is the
criteria that could make us finally do the long hoped for switch).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home