From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Re: pvops kernel branches - 2.6.36 options, stable/next/etc? Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:00:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20101109150033.GC7208@dumpdata.com> References: <4CD84C1C.3090703@goop.org> <677774.36242.qm@web56105.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <677774.36242.qm@web56105.mail.re3.yahoo.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Boris Derzhavets Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Bruce Edge List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:20:13AM -0800, Boris Derzhavets wrote: > > No.=A0 xen/next-2.6.36 doesn't exist any more, and it never really > > contained anything useful.=A0 xen/next-2.6.37, however, is closely > > tracking upstream and I hope will reach functional parity with the > > 2.6.32-based branches. >=20 > Is 2.6.38 merge window right estimate for time frame to reach functiona= l=20 > parity with the 2.6.32-based branches ? Not exactly. We are aiming for the basic functionality for running a PV g= uest in that timeframe. Right now, you probably can run an HVM guests, thought= we have been so focused on shaking out bringup bugs that it has not been on = our list of high priorities. However, something which I did not know until last week, is that there is= a blkback and netback built in QEMU. Which means you could boot up a PV gue= st with the blkback/netback utilizing the QEMU back-ends - how well they do,= I don't know. I am not even sure how to utilize it - it might be worth digging in= that and finding out how well it works?