Forwarding the message below from Mark McLoughlin for wider exposure... To make it crystal clear - we are almost certainly *NOT* going to have Xen Dom0 host support in Fedora 9 GA. People requiring a Xen Dom0 host should expect to remain on Fedora 8. We *WILL* be providing Xen DomU guests running Fedora 9, with a kernel that is at last synced to bare metal versions in a supportable manner. If Dom0 support in F10 rawhide is sufficiently stable, we may add Dom0 to F9 post-GA, but don't count on it. The ancient "upstream" Xen community kernels are never coming back. Celebrate :-) Dan. ----- Forwarded message from Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> ----- > From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:29:17 +0000 > Subject: [Fedora-xen] Plans for paravirt_ops kernel-xen > > Hi, > Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching > our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to a > state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as > described here: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html > > Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will > have a kernel-xen update with: > > + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base > > + Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream > > + x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support > > + Paravirt framebuffer > > However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced at > this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0 working. > > With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the > difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone > the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support. > > The alternative course of action was to keep shipping the > 2.6.21.7 based kernel-xen in Fedora 9, but we have ruled this out as a > supportable option. This kernel is almost a year old now and we cannot > expect Fedora hackers to keep the distribution working on such an old > kernel. Examples of the kind of issues we see cropping up are: > > 1) Broken installs due to old squashfs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/431109 > > 2) Broken SELinux due to old SELinux: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/436173 > > 3) Broken networking due to old netlink: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/431179 > > We feel that making significant investment across the > distribution to keep this old kernel working for the sake of Dom0 > support would be wasting effort on a dead codebase. > > Work will continue apace on the Dom0 paravirt_ops effort for > Fedora 10 and we hope to introduce the first build to rawhide soon after > Fedora 9 been branched. This first build should include backend drivers > and x86_64 support. If all goes well with the Dom0 support in Fedora 10 > rawhide, we may well pull it into Fedora 9 as a post-GA update. > > So, in summary: > > 1) Try out the F9 rawhide/beta paravirt_ops kernel-xen in your DomUs > > 2) Keep your Dom0 on Fedora 8 for now > > 3) If you want to help out with Dom0 paravirt_ops testing, then be > ready to jump onto Fedora 10 rawhide > > Thanks, > Mark. > > -- > Fedora-xen mailing list > Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen > ----- End forwarded message ----- -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
