From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] 2.6.17 merge additions Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:19:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <45E7F701.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45E7F701.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2/3/07 09:05, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > Before submitting 2.6.18 stuff we were missing from the -unstable merge, > is it possible to get an understanding why patches 5 (pc speaker device > registration in domU) and 8 (early DMI scan) of the 2.6.17 set were not > taken? I'm undecided on those. Keeping pcspkr is pretty harmless (actually I'm not sure what the device registration is even for!) and removing it would just take us further from native. I don't have a really strong opinion on this one however. For the second patch: the principle of moving DMI scan earlier is nice, but this approach makes a horrible mess of the mm init code (which is quite nasty enough already!). I wonder whether we could come up with a two-stage mm init for x86/64 -- some very early Xen-specific stuff to get is into a state that is a bit more like native, would allow us to do things like DMI scan at a more appropriate time, and might clean up the paging_init() mess a bit rather than making it worse. -- Keir