From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754490AbZCBM0i (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:26:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751291AbZCBM0a (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:26:30 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:58814 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751891AbZCBM03 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:26:29 -0500 Message-ID: <49ABD05C.3010906@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:26:04 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49A8DF28.4050301@goop.org> <20090228072055.GC9351@elte.hu> <49ABA633.2050903@redhat.com> <20090302120445.GA29015@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20090302120445.GA29015@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> The current, out-of-tree xen kernel stuff is based on 2.6.18. >> [...] > > Sure, but what i'm pointing out is the following aspect of > communication: > >>>> [...] At the moment its all running on massive out-of-tree >>>> patches, which doesn't make anyone happy. It's best that it >>>> be in the mainline kernel. You know, like we argue for >>>> everything else. > > Comparing it to a 2.6.18 base is simply misleading when it comes > to upstreaming something. Enterprise distros will rebase, and > their out-of-tree pile of patches will shrink. I think Jeremy refers to the 2.6.18 kernel though. And IMHO it isn't misleading as this is the only option for a dom0 kernel. Well, was until very recently, now you can also run the latest pv_ops bits with dom0 support. That is still very young code though and I wouldn't use that (yet) for production systems. Works fine on my development box though. The bits needed for pv_ops based dom0 support in arch/x86 is small compared to what is already there for domU support. cheers, Gerd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:26:04 +0100 Message-ID: <49ABD05C.3010906@redhat.com> References: <1235786365-17744-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090227212812.26d02f34.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <49A8DF28.4050301@goop.org> <20090228072055.GC9351@elte.hu> <49ABA633.2050903@redhat.com> <20090302120445.GA29015@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090302120445.GA29015@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Xen-devel , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> The current, out-of-tree xen kernel stuff is based on 2.6.18. >> [...] > > Sure, but what i'm pointing out is the following aspect of > communication: > >>>> [...] At the moment its all running on massive out-of-tree >>>> patches, which doesn't make anyone happy. It's best that it >>>> be in the mainline kernel. You know, like we argue for >>>> everything else. > > Comparing it to a 2.6.18 base is simply misleading when it comes > to upstreaming something. Enterprise distros will rebase, and > their out-of-tree pile of patches will shrink. I think Jeremy refers to the 2.6.18 kernel though. And IMHO it isn't misleading as this is the only option for a dom0 kernel. Well, was until very recently, now you can also run the latest pv_ops bits with dom0 support. That is still very young code though and I wouldn't use that (yet) for production systems. Works fine on my development box though. The bits needed for pv_ops based dom0 support in arch/x86 is small compared to what is already there for domU support. cheers, Gerd