On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:10 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@iki.fi> writes: > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:02:51AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:12:28PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > >> > If we're talking about Linux 2.6.32 support for pv_ops dom0 here, then that's > >> > in progress, see: > >> > > >> > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html > >> > > >> > the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy gets back from > >> > his vacation. > >> > >> What chance does this have of making it in time for Squeeze? > >> > > > > When actually is 'in time' for Squeeze? > > > > Novell already has the oldstyle xenlinux patches for 2.6.32, so they > > could be used, if pv_ops dom0 patches weren't in shape for Squeeze. Are Novell going to be releasing a distribution which uses 2.6.32 and is supported for the lifetime of Squeeze? We've been here before with Lenny where we took 2.6.26 patches from Novell and they eventually shipped a 2.6.27 based system leaving us with unsupported (and buggy) 2.6.26 patches in Lenny. > > > > -- Pasi > > Given that the pv_ops dom0 is still unstable: I don't think that is the case. There are some issues which prevent it going upstream immediately but those are to do with the impact of the patches, not stability issues, and are being actively resolved. > Where are the oldstyle patches for 2.6.32? I don't think that would be wise -- Debian has been bitten two releases in a row now by taking 3rd party Xen patches and having that third party move onto other things, thereby leaving us with an unsupported patch. No one on the Debian kernel team has expressed an interest in maintaining such a patch this time around. 2.6.32 is going to be a long term supported release both from kernel.org[0] and xen.org[1] and I think it makes perfect sense to base Squeeze's Xen support on that tree. Ian. [0] http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable-status-01-2010.html and http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126384198403392&w=2 [1] http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html description of xen/stable-2.6.32 branch. -- Ian Campbell BOFH excuse #379: We've picked COBOL as the language of choice.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part