From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: Paravirt-ops VMI / Xen / lrustyvisor merge status Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:35:07 -0800 Message-ID: <45CC242B.4010909@vmware.com> References: <45CC0672.7090201@vmware.com> <200702090821.48478.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200702090821.48478.ak@suse.de> 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 Cc: Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List , Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2007 06:28, 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? >> = > > I don't know in what shape it is in as it hasn't been tested by me. > From the looks it looks reasonable enough for merging. But I didn't like > some of your recent updates. > = If you think any of them can be done cleaner, let me know and I will = redo the patches. The USE_REAL_TIME_DELAY stuff is really ugly, and mostly a hack. You = can drop it. Our fix should be to not let the virtual hardware drive = the physical hardware that fast, or to recognize the panic state in = delay loops and start respecting instead of ignoring delay. Zach