Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Keir Fraser]

On 12/08/2011 17:03, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
>> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
>> stuff, Ian?
> 
> There should be two patches from me in your queue/inbox which I
> would both consider candidates.

"x86/PCI-MSI: properly determine VF BAR values" and "VT-d: don't reject
valid DMAR/ATSR tables on systems with multiple PCI segments"?

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Andrew Cooper]

On 12/08/11 16:51, Keir Fraser wrote:
> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
> stuff, Ian?
>
>  -- Keir

I would suggest my irq fix from today as a candidate, if it gets through
staging in time

~Andrew

> On 12/08/2011 16:40, "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Any time estimate for stable release Xen 4.1.2 ?
>> If it's possible.
>>
>> Boris.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Keir Fraser]

On 12/08/2011 17:20, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/08/11 16:51, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
>> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
>> stuff, Ian?
>> 
>>  -- Keir
> 
> I would suggest my irq fix from today as a candidate, if it gets through
> staging in time

Yeah, that's a definite one.

 Thanks,
 Keir

> ~Andrew
> 
>> On 12/08/2011 16:40, "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Any time estimate for stable release Xen 4.1.2 ?
>>> If it's possible.
>>> 
>>> Boris.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 12.08.11 at 18:18, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 17:03, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
>>> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
>>> stuff, Ian?
>> 
>> There should be two patches from me in your queue/inbox which I
>> would both consider candidates.
> 
> "x86/PCI-MSI: properly determine VF BAR values" and "VT-d: don't reject
> valid DMAR/ATSR tables on systems with multiple PCI segments"?

Exactly.

Jan

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Keir Fraser]

On 16/08/2011 14:26, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
>> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
>> stuff, Ian?
> 
> Given 
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-08/msg00205.html,
> it should also be considered to revert 23092:0f2b9b6c5a74 (which I
> unintentionally reverted in -unstable with 23573:584c2e5e03d9, for
> which in turn I'm holding back the correction due to aforementioned
> regression and the lack of a comment from Stefano).

The change will need to be re-validated through xen-unstable anyway. I'll
revert it from 4.1-testing.

 -- Keir

> Jan
> 

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 14:26, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
> >>>> On 12.08.11 at 17:51, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We should consider doing a first RC for it asap. Does anyone have anything
> >> specific to be backported that hasn't already been done? E.g., toolstack
> >> stuff, Ian?
> > 
> > Given 
> > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-08/msg00205.html,
> > it should also be considered to revert 23092:0f2b9b6c5a74 (which I
> > unintentionally reverted in -unstable with 23573:584c2e5e03d9, for
> > which in turn I'm holding back the correction due to aforementioned
> > regression and the lack of a comment from Stefano).
> 
> The change will need to be re-validated through xen-unstable anyway. I'll
> revert it from 4.1-testing.
 
I think that reverting the commit is a good idea, see the email I have just sent to the thread "Re: hvm_domain_use_pirq() breaks device".

AW: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Ian Jackson]

(xen-devel added to the CC)

Carsten Schiers writes ("AW: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?"):
> Hi Keir, did you intentionally left these out for 4.1.2?
> 
> They improve usability of xl toolstack as xend replacement.
> 
> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/0648846b4d17
> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/2ae357405850
> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c2995f0555af

I'm happy with all of these being backported.

The first two apply cleanly to 4.1-testing.  Keir, should I port them
across or do you have a clever backport script ?

The last one, c2995f0555af, has conflicts.  Carsten, would you care to
post a version against 4.1 ?

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Shriram Rajagopalan]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1869 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Shriram Rajagopalan <rshriram@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
>
>> (xen-devel added to the CC)
>>
>> Carsten Schiers writes ("AW: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?"):
>> > Hi Keir, did you intentionally left these out for 4.1.2?
>> >
>> > They improve usability of xl toolstack as xend replacement.
>> >
>> > http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/0648846b4d17
>> > http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/2ae357405850
>> > http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c2995f0555af
>>
>> I'm happy with all of these being backported.
>>
>> The first two apply cleanly to 4.1-testing.  Keir, should I port them
>> across or do you have a clever backport script ?
>>
>>
> The last one, c2995f0555af, has conflicts.  Carsten, would you care to
>> post a version against 4.1 ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>
[sorry for the repost as there was an incorrect xen-devel email id in
earlier list]

Keir,
 I would like to backport the following fixes and patches related to Remus.

1. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c8ae80a11d47
2. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/29d81623dc14
3. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/b04e57ec4671
4. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/62c0dfc9efbf
5. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/ecff559bf474
6. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/15fc211a13bf

Patches 2-6 apply cleanly against 4.1-testing. Patch 1 does not apply
cleanly
as it has some content that I didn't post, but seems to have gotten in while

Ian Jackson was committing it
(something related to tools/python/xen/xm/messages/xen-xm.pot).

shriram

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3709 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Keir Fraser]

On 27/08/2011 10:10, "Shriram Rajagopalan" <rshriram@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
>> (xen-devel added to the CC)
>> 
>> Carsten Schiers writes ("AW: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?"):
>>> Hi Keir, did you intentionally left these out for 4.1.2?
>>> 
>>> They improve usability of xl toolstack as xend replacement.
>>> 
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/0648846b4d17
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/2ae357405850
>>> http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c2995f0555af
>> 
>> I'm happy with all of these being backported.
>> 
>> The first two apply cleanly to 4.1-testing.  Keir, should I port them
>> across or do you have a clever backport script ?
>>   
>> The last one, c2995f0555af, has conflicts.  Carsten, would you care to
>> post a version against 4.1 ?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ian.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 
> Keir,
>  I would like to backport the following fixes and patches related to Remus.
> 
> 1. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c8ae80a11d47
> 2. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/29d81623dc14
> 3. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/b04e57ec4671
> 4. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/62c0dfc9efbf
> 5. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/ecff559bf474
> 6. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/15fc211a13bf
> 
> Patches 2-6 apply cleanly against 4.1-testing. Patch 1 does not apply cleanly
> as it has some content that I didn't post, but seems to have gotten in while
> IanJ was committing it (something related to
> tools/python/xen/xm/messages/xen-xm.pot).

I'll leave it to Ian Jackson to backport these if he agrees with your
choices.

 -- Keir

> shriram
> 
> 

Re: Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?

[Ian Jackson]

Shriram Rajagopalan writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen 4.1.2 - when ?"):
> Keir,
>  I would like to backport the following fixes and patches related to Remus.
> 
> 1. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/c8ae80a11d47
> 2. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/29d81623dc14
> 3. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/b04e57ec4671
> 4. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/62c0dfc9efbf
> 5. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/ecff559bf474
> 6. http://xenbits.xen.org/hg/xen-unstable.hg/rev/15fc211a13bf
> 
> Patches 2-6 apply cleanly against 4.1-testing. Patch 1 does not apply cleanly
> as it has some content that I didn't post, but seems to have gotten in while
> IanJ was committing it (something related to tools/python/xen/xm/messages/xen-xm.pot).

I have done this.  Please CC me for future backport requests, if you
want to CC someone.

Yes, the change to xm.pot was spurious.  The rest applied cleanly.

Thanks,
Ian.