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

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



On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
> > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated 
> > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Status/todo:
> > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > > > 
> > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status:
> > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > > > 
> > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be
> > > > available any day now from
> > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>.  Is it
> > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the
> > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26?
> > > 
> > > dom0 looks currently out of reach,
> > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet
> > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward
> > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26.. 
> 
> sorry but no please read
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
> 
> pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and
> enhance the existing 2.6.26 base.
> what are you moaning?

Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.

If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.

William

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: