On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 15:44 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > The pvhvm drivers for Xen allow a fully virtualised guest (aka HVM) to > use the Xen PV disk and network interfaces the same as a Xen guest > running paravirtualised, in addition they allow for PV time and event > delivery, suspend/resume support and PV hooks to improve performance > under shadow page tables. > > The drivers are currently in linux-next and are expected to go in during > the next merge window. Stefano (the upstream author) has also prepared > backports to 2.6.32 for RHEL6 and I would like to know if there would be > interest in (or rather objections to) my adding these to the squeeze > kernel? This looks OK in principle. > The majority of the patch is a new driver for a virtual PCI device which > provides the glue to allow the existing PV drivers to work in an HVM > context. One nit is that you are adding to <linux/pci_ids.h> which is deprecated now. You should just define the vendor/device IDs in the driver. > The diffstat (below vs 2.6.32) is a bit daunting but really it is just > some infrastructure hooks and the new "platform-pci" driver. The > functionality is also rather modular so it would be possible e.g. to > just have PV disk and network but not time etc etc. > > The full series of patches can be found at > http://xenbits.xensource.com/gitweb?p=people/sstabellini/linux-pvhvm.git > in the branch 2.6.32-pvhvm > > Opinions? I note that the backport branch was only created today, so I'm guessing it hasn't had a whole lot of testing yet. Can we put off this decision for a week or so, so you and your colleagues have time to test the backport branch and we can also see Linus's decision on whether to pull the changes into 2.6.36? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part