Re: [Xen-devel] Re: "ACPI: Unable to start the ACPI Interpreter"

[Liwei <xieliwei@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 29 June 2011 22:23, Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- xieliwei@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I've always wondered, which would be a better choice for a Dom0
>> kernel? I've always thought Jeremy's and yours would be better since
>> they have xen specific patches/bug fixes. Is there a reason to favour
>
> We have "earlier" patches. Meaning the #master branches has patches
> that are going to be in proposed for 3.1. So you get the extra fancy stuff 
> before it is
> integrated in the vanilla.
>
>> the vanilla kernels?
>
> Mostly just separation of patches. The "extra fancy stuff" could bring in
> bugs so if you use the vanilla kernel you would not trip over them.
> And the #master in my case did have some extra fancy stuff in the Xen PCI - so
> I was trying to isolate whether the issue you were tripping over was the fault
> of the new code or something that has been in there since 2.6.37. It was the 
> latter.
>
> Besides that - in the past we had a backlog of patches to make Xen work 
> nicely -
> but almost all (except the #stable/vga.support) are in the upstream kernel.
>
> So it is more of "stable" (vanilla) vs "development" (our #master or 
> #devel/next-3.0
> branches).

Alright, understood. Thanks for explaining!

>> Sweet! The patch works perfectly and I've upgraded to 3.0 and the
>
> Great. Is it OK if I stick 'Tested-by:' on the patch?
>

I have only two systems to test on and didn't really do any
complicated testing other than load testing and verifying that the
correct IRQ number for SCI is used, but the patch is a simple and
straightforward one, so I guess if you're okay with it, I'm okay too.

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