On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:00:51AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 10:26 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> 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).
>
> Yes, I hadn't considered this until now, I see the dilemma.
>
> I don't think any one really wants to perpetuate the classic-Xen port
> any further by creating a new upstream linux-2.6.32-xen.hg (although I
> suppose we could if there was demand) so stashing patches like this in
> the linux-2.6.18-xen.hg tree makes sense.
>
Since both Novell/SLES and Citrix/XenServer/XCP currently use
the classic Xen patches (Xenlinux) it sounds like a good idea
to have a common upstream tree?
I think it should be less effort than porting back and forward
to/from linux-2.6.18-xen.hg ? Am I correct?
> > 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).
>
> I guess there is a certain amount of chicken and egg there and I also
> suppose nobody really wants to be the guinea pig ;-)
>
> FWIW I hope that XCP can make the switch before too long and that
> XenServer will be able to follow, perhaps in the next major release.
>
Yeah, pvops tree obviously should be the main xen.org kernel tree for
all new development and testing efforts.
-- Pasi
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home