From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Paravirt-ops VMI / Xen / lrustyvisor merge status Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:28:18 -0800 Message-ID: <45CC0672.7090201@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Andi Kleen , Virtualization Mailing List , Rusty Russell , Chris Wright , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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? Chris / Jeremy - perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen updated Xen = paravirt-ops patches go out yet - is 2.6.21 still the merge target? I don't want to be pushy, but I do want our code to get merged, and = time's a ticking. I think we're all in good shape, but the sooner the = code all gets merged the sooner we can tackle the remaining cleanup / = polishing tasks. 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. Zach