From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [FW: FYI: The plan for Xen kernels in Fedora 9] Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:36:42 -0800 Message-ID: <475DDB9A.30300@goop.org> References: <20071210152025.GF12703@redhat.com> <1197306414.12267.23.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1197306414.12267.23.camel@sisko.scot.redhat.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: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > I just tidied up my current tree, and I've pushed patches to > > http://people.redhat.com/sct/patches/dom0-pvops/2.6.24-rc4-A0/ > > These include Jeremy Fitzhardinge's existing dom0 work (except for the > chunk that was a start towards adding the ELF note stuff to vmlinux, > I'll add that back once it's at least compiling properly.) > > So far everything is done within the pvops framework, so there's nothing > added that stops a single kernel image running both baremetal and as > dom0. New since Jeremy's patches are a basic mtrr plugin (not full > runtime mtrr, but enough to satisfy SMP boot), a bit of ACPI tweaking > and ioremap pv_ops. I just had a quick look through this, and it looks good to me. One thing though: I'm wondering if we shouldn't have CONFIG_XEN_DOM0 protect this stuff, so that its possible to build a domU-only kernel. J