[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/8] 2.6.17 merge additions

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:19:11 +0000
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:18:31 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acdcq9ZtFQ8h+8ifEduwRgAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/8] 2.6.17 merge additions

On 2/3/07 09:05, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Before submitting 2.6.18 stuff we were missing from the -unstable merge,
> is it possible to get an understanding why patches 5 (pc speaker device
> registration in domU) and 8 (early DMI scan) of the 2.6.17 set were not
> taken?

I'm undecided on those. Keeping pcspkr is pretty harmless (actually I'm not
sure what the device registration is even for!) and removing it would just
take us further from native. I don't have a really strong opinion on this
one however. For the second patch: the principle of moving DMI scan earlier
is nice, but this approach makes a horrible mess of the mm init code (which
is quite nasty enough already!). I wonder whether we could come up with a
two-stage mm init for x86/64 -- some very early Xen-specific stuff to get is
into a state that is a bit more like native, would allow us to do things
like DMI scan at a more appropriate time, and might clean up the
paging_init() mess a bit rather than making it worse.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.