From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pasi =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E4rkk=E4inen?= Subject: xen/next Linux 2.6.32 pv_ops dom0 kernel Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:29:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20100220152942.GJ2761@reaktio.net> References: <20100210153954.GA9539@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B7731DE.8020905@swissonline.ch> <20100216181005.GC21067@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B7B1349.9020003@goop.org> <20100217083354.GT2861@reaktio.net> <4B7C3AF8.2070000@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B7C3AF8.2070000@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Marcial Rion , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:52:40AM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 02/17/2010 12:33 AM, Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:51:05PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> =20 >>>> >>>> =20 >>>>> Question: Is it known when this piece of code will be introduced in= the >>>>> "pv_ops Kernel tree"? >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>> Hmm.. Jeremy's plans are to re-base the pvops changes that went in >>>> 2.6.31.6 onto 2.6.32. The reason being that 2.6.32 has been choosen = by >>>> many distributions as their next vehicle for release. The patches be= ing >>>> mostly, if possible, related only to Xen. >>>> >>>> The patch I forwarded to you is targetted for 2.6.33 so it would not= appear >>>> normally in 2.6.32 tree unles Greg KH choose to back-port it in. Gre= g is >>>> the maintainer of the 2.6.32 stable tree. >>>> >>>> I would recommend you e-mail Greg KH with this e-mail, explain your >>>> situation and ask him if he wouldn't mind merging the patch in. >>>> Thought you might need to do some of the work yourself >>>> (as in, merge the patch in an earlier kernel) - it seems you already >>>> have done this so hopefully that shouldn't be a problem. >>>> >>>> Try it that way, as this way also the distributions will pick up the= fix >>>> and you would be able to load any new distro on your box without hav= ing >>>> to manually recompile the kernel and such. >>>> >>>> =20 >>> Is that one change enough to fix the reported problem? Can we just >>> cherry-pick it over? Or does it need a lot of supporting patches? >>> >>> =20 >>>> Then when Jeremy revs up the xen/next tree to next stable rev (I thi= nk >>>> he will do this, not sure?), it will automatically be picked up (if = Greg picks it up in his tree). >>>> >>>> =20 >>> Yes. At the moment xen/next is based on plain 2.6.32 because that is >>> also an ancestor version of mainline git development. Once the 2.6.3= 2 >>> tree basically works (which should be close), then I can merge all th= e >>> stable branch changes onto it and call it "xen/stable" or something. >>> >>> =20 >> So that means I should try xen/next now? :) >> =20 > > Give it a go. It boots OK for me, and I can start xend. But I get =20 > domains hanging in pvgrub; I'm not sure blkback is working properly. O= r =20 > it could be a tools issue... > I just tried the latest xen/next 2.6.32 64bit dom0 kernel with Xen 4.0.0-= rc4 hypervisor. It seems to build, boot and work for me. I'm able to run PV guests without problems! -- Pasi