On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > 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. > > > > First I'd like to thank you guys for doing this work. I think it's very > important to get good Xen support working and integrated into upstream kernel. > > Was there some specific problem/bug about dom0 support (backend drivers and > x86-64), or just not enough time? Simply lack of time - stability of DomU is of most importance because we can't change the $INSTALL_TREE/images/xen/{vmlinux,initrd.img} once F9 is released. So we need to prioritize DomU support. Pushing out a new kernel to add Dom0 is trivial post-GA since it doesn't impact installer images. Dan. -- |=- 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-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen