| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[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
|
|
|
| |
|
Home