[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?



On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html
> > > 
> > > I think the situation has changed after that.. 
> > 
> > The save/restore and ballooning patches were applied to the trunk 2.6.26
> > Debian kernel a few days back, enabling these features for 32 bit
> > kernels.
> > 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > > 
> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > 
> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. 
> > > 
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary
> > > 
> > > "9 hours ago 	Ingo Molnar 	Merge branch 'xen-64bit'"
> > 
> > Lenny will be releasing with (at most) 2.6.26 and these patches are a
> > bit too large and intrusive to non-Xen code paths to be backported.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I only meant those patches are queued for upstream 2.6.27. I didn't
> mean they should be applied to debian xen kernel for lenny.
> 
> Like said, this thread was started to discuss about possible options of
> getting xen dom0 support into lenny, and I pasted that git link to give a
> status update of pv_ops work happening atm.
> 

Lenny will ship with a much worse Xen support than etch.. which sucks. 

Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be used as
a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel. 

Obviously this is not debian's fault, and that's why we have this discussion
now.. trying to see if there are any options of fixing the situation.

(this thread was started on debian-xen list btw.. at some point it has
falled off from CC list though)

-- Pasi


Reply to: