From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:41:05 +0200 Message-ID: <4A294AA1.5060003@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: Keir Fraser Cc: Isaku Yamahata , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Christian Tramnitz List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/05/09 15:36, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 05/06/2009 14:26, "Christian Tramnitz" wrote: > >> Simple reason, there are so many fundamental changes in/before 2.6.29 >> i.e. ext4 and in terms of video support (KMS, GEM) that anything before >> 2.6.29 (such as the 2.6.27 XCI tree) will be a waste of efforts if that >> will be the next tree that should have long-term (until pvops merges >> upstream, haha) support. > > We don't need to wait for pv_ops to be merged. We just need it to have > near-enough feature parity. Actually now it supports HVM guests I'm tempted > to just move over to it. Go ahead! It is really time to stop forward-porting stuff. The time is much better spent in adding the missing features to pv_ops/dom0. Also just after the 3.4 release is the perfect moment for that move, 3.5 should be able to ship with a pv_ops based kernel then. cheers, Gerd