From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: xen patches are in 2.6.37 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:29:00 -0700 Message-ID: <4CCC71FC.7020801@goop.org> References: <20101029094641.GL2804@reaktio.net> <4CCAFB35.6030505@goop.org> <20101029181006.GA19688@entuzijast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101029181006.GA19688@entuzijast.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Josip Rodin Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/29/2010 11:10 AM, Josip Rodin wrote: > Are you going to make a temporary branch where you'll just slap on the > missing code (even the non-upstreamable parts), just so we can test the full > Xen dom0 stack in the current circumstances? Upstream kernel has undergone > many changes since .32 and it stands to reason that there are other bugs to > flush out, unrelated to code upstreamability. Yes, I want to keep a full-featured Xen kernel tracking upstream releases. But I'd like to put a strong emphasis on making sure that components which must be upstreamed (ie, to get a useful system), or are very close to upstreamable should be kept in an upstreamable form. In general, stuff that I think is plausible for upstream, or actually being upstreamed, will be in upstream/*. Those branches are also highly dynamic (rebasing, etc), so never use them as the base for your own branches... J