On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:20:19PM +0200, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote:
>>So all in all I think for me this aquisition is good news. I
think most
>>problems with xen comes from xensource as it's they only product
>>generating income and for that reason the opensource version seems to
>>get less care than the version you can buy from them. (This is just my
>>opinion so it's not necessarily so)
>>
>
>I think Xensource is putting a lot of effort into opensource Xen.
>
>It's just the dom0/pv_ops mess that's causing problems atm.. that _should_
>get fixed in the near future.
>
>
I have noticed that. But main reason for my feeling is that they should
have started the push much more early than they did. Or maybe it wasn't
feasible before. Anyway it's just have been my feeling of the whole
thing and I think it's good to have two competing techs as it will
provide that both will advance.
Yeah well.. IIRC Xen patches were first sent for 2.6.15 kernel.
Those were rejected and not integrated into vanilla kernel. I can't remember
the reason for that.
Next attempt failed when others wanted to have the paravirt ops (pv_ops) framework
instead, which enables Linux kernel PV support for any hypervisor, not just for Xen.
Then it took a while to get the generic pv_ops framework done and merged into Linux
kernel.
And after that it has taken a lot of time to port the Xen domU from the original
"Xenlinux"
to pv_ops framework. pv_ops Xen domU support has been in mainline Linux kernel since
2.6.23.
And now there is active development going on to get the pv_ops dom0 working
and merged into Linux. Btw Redhat started this work earlier, and it is now
being continued by Xensource (Jeremy Fitzhardinge).
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
-- Pasi