On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Michael D Labriola wrote:
> xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/17/2010 01:52:40 PM:
>
> > On 02/17/2010 12:33 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:51:05PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Question: Is it known when this piece of code will be introduced in
> the
> > >>>> "pv_ops Kernel tree"?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> Hmm.. Jeremy's plans are to re-base the pvops changes that went in
> > >>> 2.6.31.6 onto 2.6.32. The reason being that 2.6.32 has been choosen
> by
> > >>> many distributions as their next vehicle for release. The patches
> being
> > >>> mostly, if possible, related only to Xen.
> > >>>
> > >>> The patch I forwarded to you is targetted for 2.6.33 so it wouldnot
> appear
> > >>> normally in 2.6.32 tree unles Greg KH choose to back-port it in.
> Greg is
> > >>> the maintainer of the 2.6.32 stable tree.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would recommend you e-mail Greg KH with this e-mail, explain your
> > >>> situation and ask him if he wouldn't mind merging the patch in.
> > >>> Thought you might need to do some of the work yourself
> > >>> (as in, merge the patch in an earlier kernel) - it seems you already
> > >>> have done this so hopefully that shouldn't be a problem.
> > >>>
> > >>> Try it that way, as this way also the distributions will pick up the
> fix
> > >>> and you would be able to load any new distro on your box without
> having
> > >>> to manually recompile the kernel and such.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Is that one change enough to fix the reported problem? Can we just
> > >> cherry-pick it over? Or does it need a lot of supporting patches?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Then when Jeremy revs up the xen/next tree to next stable rev (I
> think
> > >>> he will do this, not sure?), it will automatically be picked up
> > (if Greg picks it up in his tree).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Yes. At the moment xen/next is based on plain 2.6.32 because that is
> > >> also an ancestor version of mainline git development. Once the
> 2.6.32
> > >> tree basically works (which should be close), then I can merge all
> the
> > >> stable branch changes onto it and call it "xen/stable" or something.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > So that means I should try xen/next now? :)
> > >
> >
> > Give it a go. It boots OK for me, and I can start xend. But I get
> > domains hanging in pvgrub; I'm not sure blkback is working properly. Or
>
> > it could be a tools issue...
>
> Does this require Xen 4.0-rc or can I do some testing using my 3.4.2
> installs?
>
I believe xen/next uses the new APIC setup stuff, so it requires Xen 4.0.0
hypervisor. Correct?
iirc earlier there was a patch on xen-devel to support the new APIC stuff with
Xen 3.4 hypervisor.
Was it this patch?:
http://xenbits.xen.org/xen-3.4-testing.hg?rev/608ebc959c35
-- Pasi
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home