(OT) Re: 2.6.20 for FC6?

dragoran drago01 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 8 08:23:52 UTC 2007


Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:39:51AM +0100, dragoran wrote:
>   
>> Dave Jones wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 03:08:04PM -0600, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> It gets better...
>>>>> http://www.devxnews.com/article.php/3658001
>>>>>
>>>>> "Pratt also explained that Xen is no longer actively seeking 
>>>>>           
>>> inclusion in the mainline Linux kernel either."
>>>       
>>>> Oh, swell. So a 2.6.20 kernel for FC5 is DOA. :-(
>>>>         
>>> Not really. The rebases over the last year or two have been done by
>>> Red Hat, not Xensource.  By the time the 'official' Xen tree is
>>> updated, it's based on some six month old kernel which is uninteresting.
>>> So sit tight and wait for the Xen team to do their magic.
>>> (Largely the work of Juan Quintela, who succeeds in doing in a month
>>> what takes Xensource half a year to do)
>>>
>>>       
>> I don't know how Juan handles this but wouldn't it be easier to port xen 
>> during a kernel development cycle and not after the kernel is released? 
>> If there are some last minute changes they wont be that big. I assume 
>> that this will save a lot of time (if not already done).
>>     
>
> Juan handles a hell of alot of work - its not merely tracking upstream
> LKML, but also tracking upstream xen-devel. Doing this for i386, x86_64
> and ia64, and many of the really nasty merge issues are low level hardware
> stuff. Add to that Juan's maintaining upto 6 kernel trees - xen 3.0.3 
> against 2.6.18, .19, .20, likewise for xen 3.0.4 - providing updates for 
> 3 Fedora releases FC5, FC6 and rawhide. At the same time we are continually
> pushing upstream xen-devel to get onto recent kernels to make this work
> easier, as well as having more folks working on paravirt_ops and a Xen
> paravirt_ops impl as a 2nd strategy for getting a mainline Xen tree.
>
> So yes, having Xen out of tree is incredibly painful for everyone concerned
> and we are pursuing multiple angles to reduce this pain and hopefully get
> to a state where Xen is in sync with LKML, and preferrably merged. Its a
> large body of code so its not a quick or easy process :-(
>
> Regards,
> Dan.
>   
ok thanks for that info




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list