Re: [Xen-devel] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter"

[Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- xieliwei@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 29 June 2011 04:44, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, you are using my branch! I was thinking you were using the
> 3.0-rc4 virgin
> > kernel (ie, from ftpkernel.org)
> 
> Hmm, I've always wondered, which would be a better choice for a Dom0
> kernel? I've always thought Jeremy's and yours would be better since
> they have xen specific patches/bug fixes. Is there a reason to favour

We have "earlier" patches. Meaning the #master branches has patches
that are going to be in proposed for 3.1. So you get the extra fancy stuff 
before it is
integrated in the vanilla.

> the vanilla kernels?

Mostly just separation of patches. The "extra fancy stuff" could bring in
bugs so if you use the vanilla kernel you would not trip over them.
And the #master in my case did have some extra fancy stuff in the Xen PCI - so 
I was trying to isolate whether the issue you were tripping over was the fault
of the new code or something that has been in there since 2.6.37. It was the 
latter.

Besides that - in the past we had a backlog of patches to make Xen work nicely -
but almost all (except the #stable/vga.support) are in the upstream kernel.

So it is more of "stable" (vanilla) vs "development" (our #master or 
#devel/next-3.0
branches).
> 
> >
> > There are some cleanups in there. Try this patch instead:
> >
> ----snip----
> 
> Sweet! The patch works perfectly and I've upgraded to 3.0 and the

Great. Is it OK if I stick 'Tested-by:' on the patch?

> latest xen. PCI passthrough on windows HVM is very stable too (used
> to
> crash every few hours, and sound goes crazy after a while), up for
> almost 12 hours with no issues.
> 
> Thanks! =)

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