[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees
Keir Fraser wrote:
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.
Afaik pvops (even /next) also has no pci_backend support yet and even the pci_frontend support is mainly untested. Both (front/back) work great with Andrew's 2.6.29 tree, although I haven't seen ANY reports of IA64 running off it.
I would also consider pvops to be a moving target (you know... lkml fun) so I wouldn't really base anything on it until the structure has been approved. Maintaining two different pvops lines (one with all changes as requested by mainline maintainers and one "stable") might to much of a burden if we already have a working 2.6.29 with (hopefully) not much work to do other than extensive testing before announcing it as 2.6.18 successor.
Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our