From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Re: pvops kernel branches - 2.6.36 options, stable/next/etc? Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:13:33 -0800 Message-ID: <4CDAE0CD.3010500@goop.org> References: <4CD84C1C.3090703@goop.org> <4CD921CC.3000605@debian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4CD921CC.3000605@debian.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Thomas Goirand Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/09/2010 02:26 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/09/2010 03:14 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> On 11/08/2010 10:19 AM, Bruce Edge wrote: >> >>> Is there now or will there be a 2.6.36 stable branch, or is the only >>> option for this version the next-2.6.36 branch? >>> >> No. xen/next-2.6.36 doesn't exist any more, and it never really >> contained anything useful. xen/next-2.6.37, however, is closely >> tracking upstream and I hope will reach functional parity with the >> 2.6.32-based branches. >> > So, you do believe that it's not too late so that mainline 2.6.37 will > include the backend drivers for HDD? If so, that's great! No, mainline won't get any device backends until .38 at the earliest - .37 is closed for anything except bugfixes. But I'll maintain a .37 based tree with all the extra bits in it for full use. However, with block backends specifically, we're considering doing away with a kernel-based backend altogether and deferring it to a usermode process, so that will be independent of the kernel. J