[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [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
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |