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: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:43:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20101110194302.GA25849@dumpdata.com> References: <4CD84C1C.3090703@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Bruce Edge Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > It's not a patch on konrad's stable/xen-pcifront-0.8.2 branch which was > looking very good around the 10/21 timeframe, but which has also developed > it's own set of instabilities recently. Oooh, share please. > I haven't reported any of the symptoms as I thought I'd let the dist settle > before starting the bug reporting. > > Is there some other branch that developers working on PCI device drivers in > a pvops domU should be following? Well, I am working on a PCI E820 hole thingie, but those patches are in the infancy period. There are some fixes: stable/xen-pcifront-fixes but they aren't that .. sophisticated. > > I realize that we're tracking unstable trees, but it's either that or hvm. > We'd like to stick with the benefits that pvops provides, but I'm running > out of branches to try. > > The last stable domU I built was: > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git - > stable/xen-pcifront-0.8.2 > 8029255fcc3a7925ad8ee9f5fdc0764b6662301e Hmm, so the difference between that and the upstream is the PVonHVM and the initial domain 0 support (all in Stefano's tree).