On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:51:53AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:26:12AM +0300, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:07:15AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 05:45:51PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:24:31PM +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> > > > Given that xen is entering feature freeze for updated release
~August
> > > > is it too early to ask what the *hopes* are for xen in fedora10?
> > > >
> > > > xen 3.3.0 (or late rc) or is this still likely to be 3.2.1 or 3.2.2?
> > >
> > > Even though we don't have any Dom0 I'll update it to 3.3.0 for the
xen
> > > RPM and hypervisor. This will at least let people build their own legacy
> > > Xen kernel from upstream's 2.6.18 xen kernel if they're lucky
enough to
> > > have hardware which works with it.
> > >
> >
> > If pv_ops dom0 won't be ready for F10, would it be possible to ship
> > xensource 2.6.18 based dom0 kernel? At least that's supported upstream..
> >
> > Would be better than nothing..
>
> Or maybe rhel5 kernel?
No, this is no better - it is still 2.6.18 based which is unsupportable
when Fedora is in 2.6.26
Ok.
> I understand maintaining multiple kernels is a pain, but then
again rhel5
> (and xensource 2.6.18 xen) kernels are maintained anyway upstream..
It is not just multiple kernels - it is the age of the kernels - a kernel
which is 8 versions behind the non-Xen kernel is not supportable.
Yep.. I guess it would create too many problems with other packages/software
assuming/needing something from the kernel.
The situation is either Dom0 pv_ops, or no Dom0 at all. Those are
the
only two viable options that exist. We can't continue to waste effort
on something as old as 2.6.18
Ok.
Thanks for clearing this up (again) :)
Now I just wish all the best for pv_ops dom0 work..
Anything people could help with? Any status updates?
-- Pasi