On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:32:12AM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
>On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 19:53 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>>Sadly that's life with Xen. Upstream Xen has basically stopped all
>>kernel development leaving 'official' Xen kernels stuck on 2.6.28 which
is
>>essentially useless for any modern distro. We had the choice between
>>trying
>>to finish off the paravirt_ops port, or dropping Xen entirely :-(
>>
>
>What's this? Xen kernel development has stopped? What does that mean -
>is the GPL project dead?
Not at all.
In fact, I'd strongly disagree with Daniel's characterisation that Xen
has "stopped all kernel development" Redhat need to "finish off" the
paravirt_ops port. I've been working on it full time for the last
couple of years, and have done the vast majority of the work needed to
get paravirt_ops working.
Redhat have contributed valuable work in areas like the paravirtual
framebuffer device, and are working on 64-bit and dom0 support. But all
of that is based on the work I've been doing on paravirt-ops
infrastructure itself and the Xen implementation which uses it.
Which reminds me that would be really nice to get a binary rpm for kernel-xen
with dom0 patches in it to try it and start reporting bugs.. :)
I'm still actively working on pvops/Xen, and currently focusing
on
bringing it up to feature parity with the old 2.6.18-xen patches. In
the last few weeks I've implemented balloon support, save/restore and
starting work on pv-hvm driver support.
This is really excellent news! Thanks a lot for doing this work.
Hopefully we'll see these features in rawhide/F10 kernel-xen soon :)
-- Pasi