On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:32:12AM +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote: > >On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 19:53 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > >>Sadly that's life with Xen. Upstream Xen has basically stopped all > >>kernel development leaving 'official' Xen kernels stuck on 2.6.28 which is > >>essentially useless for any modern distro. We had the choice between > >>trying > >>to finish off the paravirt_ops port, or dropping Xen entirely :-( > >> > > > >What's this? Xen kernel development has stopped? What does that mean - > >is the GPL project dead? > > Not at all. > > In fact, I'd strongly disagree with Daniel's characterisation that Xen > has "stopped all kernel development" Redhat need to "finish off" the > paravirt_ops port. I've been working on it full time for the last > couple of years, and have done the vast majority of the work needed to > get paravirt_ops working. > > Redhat have contributed valuable work in areas like the paravirtual > framebuffer device, and are working on 64-bit and dom0 support. But all > of that is based on the work I've been doing on paravirt-ops > infrastructure itself and the Xen implementation which uses it. > Which reminds me that would be really nice to get a binary rpm for kernel-xen with dom0 patches in it to try it and start reporting bugs.. :) > I'm still actively working on pvops/Xen, and currently focusing on > bringing it up to feature parity with the old 2.6.18-xen patches. In > the last few weeks I've implemented balloon support, save/restore and > starting work on pv-hvm driver support. > This is really excellent news! Thanks a lot for doing this work. Hopefully we'll see these features in rawhide/F10 kernel-xen soon :) -- Pasi -- Fedora-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
