From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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 Message-ID: <4B7C3AF8.2070000@goop.org> References: <20100210153954.GA9539@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B7731DE.8020905@swissonline.ch> <20100216181005.GC21067@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4B7B1349.9020003@goop.org> <20100217083354.GT2861@reaktio.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100217083354.GT2861@reaktio.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pasi_K=E4rkk=E4inen?= Cc: Marcial Rion , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 b= y >>> many distributions as their next vehicle for release. The patches bei= ng >>> 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 havi= ng >>> 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 thin= k >>> he will do this, not sure?), it will automatically be picked up (if G= reg 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 2.6.32 >> 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. >> >> =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. Or=20 it could be a tools issue... J