From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: Paravirt-ops VMI / Xen / lrustyvisor merge status Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:54:34 +1100 Message-ID: <1171000474.2718.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <45CC0672.7090201@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45CC0672.7090201@vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Zachary Amsden Cc: Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 21:28 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote: > So, as 2.6.21-rc1 is approaching, what is the upstream merge status for = > the paravirt-ops backends? I believe VMI is in Andi's tree, plus or = > minus some bugfixes that are still being whittled in, but Andi, do you = > think the VMI code is in good shape for merging? > = > It would be nice for everyone to clarify their upstream plans - is the = > goal still to get Xen and lguest merged for the next kernel release? > = > Rusty, you mentioned you had a patchset to push, when do you expect to = > have it ready? I'm just doing the final file moving now (everything in arch/i386/lguest), expect to send out something within 48 hours (I need to sync up to latest git tree, too). > One of which is separating the paravirt-ops into GPL = > and non-GPL exports, which we need consensus on where the line is, but = > can't really achieve it until everyone is happy with the finalized set = > of paravirt-ops. Any patch that tries to do this now would just cause = > rejects later and slow all of our merges. Yes, I have a patch, but it breaks kvm. I'm waiting until things settle before fixing it. Cheers, Rusty.