From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3 Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 16:11:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4BE49E3F.7080608@goop.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Florian Wagner , "Zhang, Xiantao" , M A Young List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/07/2010 12:10 AM, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 07/05/2010 03:03, "Zhang, Xiantao" wrote: > > >>> Hm, there were changes to 3.4.3 to make it work better with pv_ops >>> dom0 kernels. I'm thinking things like xen-3.4-testing:19862 and >>> 19863. I suggest you post more details and you should get help from >>> pv_ops people (I cc'ed a couple of them :-). They may be able to tell >>> you straight off whether your pv_ops kernel is too >>> old/new/weird/whatever, for example. >>> >> As I know, you have to backport extra Csets like 28089, 21092, and 21161 from >> xen-unstable.hg to make it work well with latest pv_ops kernel except the >> Csets Keir had indicated. >> > Doesn't sound like 3.4.3 is going to support pv_ops then. > Florian and M A Young have reported success with 3.4.3-rc, so it isn't completely non-functional. How essential are those changes? 28089 doesn't appear in my tree ("abort: unknown revision '28089'"), but 21092 ("Allow all unused GSI to be configured via IO-APIC by new pv_ops dom0") and 21161 ("Make c/s 21089 work again with c/s 21092") both look pertient. J