From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Sixth (and final?) release candidate for Xen 3.4.3 Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 09:05:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4BE49E3F.7080608@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BE49E3F.7080608@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Florian Wagner , "Zhang, Xiantao" , M A Young List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/05/2010 00:11, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" wrote: >>> As I know, you have to backport extra Csets like 28089, 21092, and 21161 >>> from >>> xen-unstable.hg to make it work well with latest pv_ops kernel except the >>> Csets Keir had indicated. >>> >> Doesn't sound like 3.4.3 is going to support pv_ops then. >> > > Florian and M A Young have reported success with 3.4.3-rc, so it isn't > completely non-functional. How essential are those changes? 28089 > doesn't appear in my tree ("abort: unknown revision '28089'"), but 21092 > ("Allow all unused GSI to be configured via IO-APIC by new pv_ops dom0") > and 21161 ("Make c/s 21089 work again with c/s 21092") both look pertient. I doubt anyone is running pv_ops dom0 in serious production uses yet. So I'm not sure backporting this sort of stuff to our very stable branch is really necessary. Anyone running pv_ops dom0 is likely not scared of Xen 4.0. -- Keir