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
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.
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
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|