From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Tramnitz Subject: Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:26:30 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser wrote: > What do people think of this as a plan? I'd opt for an approach based on the available 2.6.29 tree from Andrew but delayed until 2.6.30 is out. Simple reason, there are so many fundamental changes in/before 2.6.29 i.e. ext4 and in terms of video support (KMS, GEM) that anything before 2.6.29 (such as the 2.6.27 XCI tree) will be a waste of efforts if that will be the next tree that should have long-term (until pvops merges upstream, haha) support. On the other hand it might make sense to use the same kernel version that RHEL6 will be using to take advantage of their (driver-) backporting efforts (not sure how heavily that has been utilized in 2.6.18). Any insider infos from the RH guys here on the list what kernel that might be? ;-) As a side-note, there is known issue with Andrew's tree not compiling on x86_32 with a recent gcc. If I remember correctly that was due to optimizations, further details here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-5667545.html#5667545 Best regards, Christian