[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 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> 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.
> 

For comparison Fedora people decided to release F9 with only domU support
included.. they didn't want to do anymore forward porting from xensource
2.6.18 xen kernels (I bet noone wants to do that) and decided to include
pv_ops based upstream kernel. And they wanted to have same versions of 
both the normal (baremetal) kernel and kernel-xen.  

but they patched 64bit xen pv_ops domU support in. So F9 supports both 32b 
and 64b pv_ops domU. F9 has 2.6.25 kernel. 

Fedora is planning to add dom0 support back to their kernel when pv_ops
based dom0 is functional.. It's not yet certain if it will be ready for
their next release (F10).

Fedora people didn't want to include separate (2.6.18) xen dom0 kernel..
because it would have created too many problems with other tools/packages
requiring features/APIs/ABIs from the kernel.. too big difference between
2.6.18 (xensource) and 2.6.25+ (vanilla/upstream linux). 

So yeah, just to wrap up their thoughts. 
 
-- Pasi


Reply to: