Xen project Mailing List

RE: [Xen-users] Status Debian Squeeze, Xen

To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mike Viau <viaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

From: Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT)

Cc:

Delivery-date: Tue, 11 May 2010 06:46:04 -0700

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:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a7T3a+jjWyHP391z7XMGr7/iZlOxzTRnQh+rJ48M1w3UA6KqcK7U//QFGaXsyfJR753QUtxdQ/V59k/fb2dnh6PgVG/e14TBmYdx5Nik7xm1nKff+Zvx4WJjrN7EJfBosOgYQsXgiXYCOFoFbfaFX6wibWo+9AwtO2Tz4HM1YQY=;

List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>

How about that :

Quote:

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

end quote.

Boris.
--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Mike Viau <viaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Mike Viau <viaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Status Debian Squeeze, Xen
To: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 9:26 AM

> Tue, 11 May 2010 11:50:29 +0200 <rolf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Im running xen on squeeze with 2.6.32-4-xen-amd64 and xen 3.4.3-rc3 from official debian packages.
>
> This works fine for PV, but HVM seems to lack.
>
> Anyone knows the status for this in Debian? I saw something about a maintainer not wanting to maintain the HVM(security etc) bit so he ditched it.
>

Yes I heard this was the case as well, but it only applys to the xen hypervisor and tools packages. You could compile 3.4.3 yourself and use squeeze with 2.6.32-4-xen-amd64 kernel.

This should get you HVM functionality.

-M

Win a $10,000 shopping spree from Hotmail! Enter now Enter now

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

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

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