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

[Xen-devel] Re: Future of xenbits Linux trees


  • To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:26:30 +0200
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:24:44 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

Keir Fraser wrote:
What do people think of this as a plan?

I'd opt for an approach based on the available 2.6.29 tree from Andrew but delayed until 2.6.30 is out.

Simple reason, there are so many fundamental changes in/before 2.6.29 i.e. ext4 and in terms of video support (KMS, GEM) that anything before 2.6.29 (such as the 2.6.27 XCI tree) will be a waste of efforts if that will be the next tree that should have long-term (until pvops merges upstream, haha) support. On the other hand it might make sense to use the same kernel version that RHEL6 will be using to take advantage of their (driver-) backporting efforts (not sure how heavily that has been utilized in 2.6.18). Any insider infos from the RH guys here on the list what kernel that might be? ;-)



As a side-note, there is known issue with Andrew's tree not compiling on x86_32 with a recent gcc. If I remember correctly that was due to optimizations, further details here: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-5667545.html#5667545


Best regards,
   Christian


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


 


Rackspace

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