On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:38:05PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > Xen. > > ~~~~ > > This might get interesting to watch for F8 if XenU gets upstream > > (Which akpm seems to suggest it might). Given we've decoupled > > kernel/kernel-xen, we might want to just disable the upstream variant > > until F9, and wait until we have both the dom0 and the domU stuff > > coming from the same pieces. Will need more discussion with > > the virtualisation team when that lands in Linus' tree. > > And there's also the kvm-xen stuff that could serve as a replacement for > the dom0 bits :-) Even if not, it's probably worth getting the domU > bits into the regular kernel because then we can simplify some of the > installer stuff quite a bit. With dom0 coming from one place and domU from another, I get the creeps about ABI differences when they're on different versions. > More generally, I think we want to look at enabling pvops and seeing > what kind of hit it has. If it's not too bad, it'd be good to have it > on since more and more is going to be using it... there's already the > VMWare implementation and the KVM pvops discussion is taking off again. Yeah, thanks for reminding me about that. Some investigation there is definitly needed. /me adds to todo Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
