From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: Xen 4.3 development update, and stock-taking Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:22:21 +0000 Message-ID: <50F7DEED.1050401@eu.citrix.com> References: <50F7CBA4.1070408@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50F7CBA4.1070408@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Roger Pau Monne Cc: Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/01/13 10:00, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > On 16/01/13 18:55, George Dunlap wrote: >> * Persistent grants for blk (external) >> owner: roger.pau@citrix >> status: Initial implementation posted >> prognosis: ? > Done, Linux implementation scheduled for 3.8, and Qemu side is also done > and being upstreamed right now. OK, so I'll mark the Linux component as "done", and the qemu component as "Good". >> * Persistent grants for net >> owner: annie.li@citrix >> status: Initial implementation posted >> prognosis: ? >> >> * Multi-page blk rings (external) >> - blkback in kernel (konrad@oracle, ?@intel) >> - qemu blkback >> status: Not started. >> prognosis: UNKNOWN > I will be taking on this project, following Intel, FreeBSD and Konrad > suggestions. Since I'm just starting now, I will mark it as "Fair". OK, thanks for the info. Out of curiosity, if someone were to consider this a blocker, would having someone else working on it speed things up, do you think? Or is it development probably "non-parallelizable"? :-) >> * openvswitch toostack integration >> owner: roger@citrix >> prognosis: ? >> status: Sample script posted by Bastian ("[RFC] openvswitch support >> script") > I have no experience with Open vSwitch, so if some with more experience > wants to take on this I would appreciate it. It should just be a matter > of adding a hotplug script. OK -- well shall I take your name off and call this "poor"? That would put it on the list of "at-risk" features for which we would ask for volunteers. >> * Rationalized backend scripts (incl. driver domains) >> owner: roger@citrix >> status: patches submitted >> prognosis: Good > The first part of this effort, that includes a new hotplug interface for > libxl has been submitted for review. The protocol between the control > and the driver domains still needs to be designed/revised based on Ian > Jackson proposal. OK -- so, should I downgrade this to "Fair"? Thanks for the updates, -George