Re: SOLVED: Re: Issue with pv_ops Kernel 2.6.31.6 and Xen [yinghai@kernel.org: [PATCH 01/35] x86: fix sci on ioapic 1]

From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi>
Cc: Marcial Rion <marcial.rion@swissonline.ch>,
	xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: SOLVED: Re: Issue with pv_ops Kernel 2.6.31.6 and Xen [yinghai@kernel.org: [PATCH 01/35] x86: fix sci on ioapic 1]
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:52:40 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7C3AF8.2070000@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217083354.GT2861@reaktio.net>

On 02/17/2010 12:33 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:51:05PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>    
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Question: Is it known when this piece of code will be introduced in the
>>>> "pv_ops Kernel tree"?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> 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 being
>>> 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. Greg 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 having
>>> to manually recompile the kernel and such.
>>>
>>>        
>> 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?
>>
>>      
>>> Then when Jeremy revs up the xen/next tree to next stable rev (I think
>>> he will do this, not sure?), it will automatically be picked up (if Greg picks it up in his tree).
>>>
>>>        
>> 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 2.6.32
>> tree basically works (which should be close), then I can merge all the
>> stable branch changes onto it and call it "xen/stable" or something.
>>
>>      
> So that means I should try xen/next now? :)
>    

Give it a go.  It boots OK for me, and I can start xend.  But I get 
domains hanging in pvgrub; I'm not sure blkback is working properly.  Or 
it could be a tools issue...

     J