Re: [Xen-devel] linux-2.6.27-xen.hg

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, see 00-README at the root of the linux-2.6.27-xen.hg repo.

 -- Keir

On 05/01/2009 21:13, "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As far as i understand it's Novell's patched tree.
> Suse performed Xen forward porting to 2.6.27.
> Canonical gave up on this task and picked up KVM, obviously
> unable to compete with Xen Hypervisor on Server's platform.
> If i am wrong about that , please advise.
>
> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] linux-2.6.27-xen.hg
> > To: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 3:25 PM
> >
> > Hmmm... I had thought that the linux-2.6.27-xen.hg tree was
> > essentially an hg equivalent of upstream
> >  kernel.org 2.6.27,
> > but it appears there are more differences (and not just bug
> > fixes).
> >
> > Can someone explain the difference and the purpose of
> > the linux-2.6.27-xen.hg tree (if other than to have a private
> > non-kernel.org copy for xen-related development that
> > hasn't yet made it upstream)?  Why, for example, are
> > the hypercall source files in a different place?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
>  



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