This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: Réf. : [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybridvirtualization?

To: xen-ia64-devel <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Réf. : [Xen-ia64-devel] Time for hybridvirtualization?
From: Jarod Wilson <jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:20:41 -0500
Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:21:00 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51CFAB8CB6883745AE7B93B3E084EBE20166FEAD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <OF1E721C18.A85DBD80-ONC12573D3.00397DEE@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <51CFAB8CB6883745AE7B93B3E084EBE20166FEAD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071115)
Xu, Anthony wrote:
> following is my thinking, it may be wrong.
> If we want to run dom0 on VTi, we still need to support of paravitualization, 
> madison is still being used.
> We can have two branch, one VT-i dom0, the other is para dom0.
> We may focus on VT-i dom0 branch.
> While we still support para dom0, if there are bugs, we need to fix it, but 
> we will not update xenolinux to new release version, we just try to make all 
> functions work well.
> In the other side, It's impossible Redhat would like to maintain two modified 
> linux version, one is for hybrid, the other is for para.
> Redhat may choose modified linux version for hybrid, it is more easier for 
> maintain.

While I can't officially speak for Red Hat and exactly what route we may or
may not take in the future, I'd say its a pretty sure thing Red Hat would not
want to maintain two modified linux versions, particularly on an architecture
that makes up such a small percentage of the user base. At the same time, Red
Hat aims to maintain upgrade paths from one version of Red Hat Enterprise
Linux to another, so whatever lands in RHEL6, there will still have to be a
way to run fully virtualized and para-virtualized guests.

Again, not speaking in any official capacity, but note that the default
"Virtualization" software in Fedora right now is kvm, and Red Hat now employs
Gerd Hoffman (aka kraxel), who has been busy working on a project called xenner.


Summary from the README:
xenner is a utility which is able to boot xen paravirtualized kernels,
without the xen hypervisor, using kvm instead.

Jarod Wilson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>