From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio Fantoni Subject: Re: Xen 4.5 development update (July update) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:55:43 +0200 Message-ID: <53CFBEDF.3090506@m2r.biz> References: <20140723002823.3F7C4BD884@laptop.dumpdata.com> <1406109106.1351.35.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <53CFBBB4.4000003@m2r.biz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: yjhyun.yoo@samsung.com, Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, Ian Campbell , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Il 23/07/2014 15:45, Stefano Stabellini ha scritto: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Fabio Fantoni wrote: >> Il 23/07/2014 12:20, Stefano Stabellini ha scritto: >>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>> (trimming CC to just those related to things I've commented on) >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 20:28 -0400, konrad.wilk@oracle.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> fair - still working on it, patches are prototypes or RFC >>>> You've used this (correctly per your definition here) on various things >>>> which it seems to me are very unlikely to make it for 4.5, i.e. things >>>> which are really early prototypes etc, which made me pause every time I >>>> ready it and have to think back to the definition. >>>> >>>> I guess what I'm saying is that "fair" is not a good label for this >>>> state, it implies that while the thing is a WIP it is still likely to >>>> make it for 4.5. >>>> >>>> I think you need a lower ranked WIP label for things which are in that >>>> state of prototype/RFC but not likely to make 4.5. "wip" or "inprogress" >>>> perhaps. >>>> >>>>> = Open = >>>>> >>>>> == ARM == >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> * ARM VM save/restore/live migration (ok) >>>>> - Junghyun Yoo >>>> I've not heard from Junghyun since the initial reposting, not sure what >>>> the prognosis is but given lack of support for SMP and some of the other >>>> issues I'm more incline to suggest fair rather than OK. Jinghyun, do you >>>> have any thoughts? >>>> >>>> It's possible that the "save/restore/dead-migration" bit is "ok", it's >>>> the live migration bits where the issues mostly remain iffy. >>>> >>>> Also this is dependent on the migration v2 by Andrew et al. >>>> >>>>> * ARM: Use super pages in p2m (ok) >>>>> v5 posted >>>>> - Ian Campbell >>>> Committed. >>>> >>>>> == QEMU == >>>>> >>>>> * Rebase of QEMU 2.0 and SeaBIOS (fair) >>>>> - Ian Jackson >>>> What is this? Neither of them sound like Ian J things. Stefano maintains >>>> Qemu and I take care of SeaBIOS. >>> Yeah, it should be me for QEMU and it is done. >>> >>> >>>> >From the SeaBIOS side we are currently using the latest upstream. >>>> >>>> IIRC Stefano has merged the version of qemu which he intends 4.5 to ship >>>> with, but he should confirm... >>> Yes, I have already merged QEMU 2.0.0 and I am not planning to merge >>> again a new QEMU upstream release before 4.5. >> qemu 2.1 is near to be released, now is rc3, why not update to 2.1? > I don't think we would have enough time to test it throughly. However, the major distributions will update to latest qemu tested or notin Xen. I think it's always best to use the latest stable qemu in xen-unstable, at least until will xen reach the freeze.