On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 11:48 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:34:17AM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for poking at this - I've updated the page to remove any > > tracking of the in-progress kernel support, since it's all better > > tracked elsewhere now. > > > > Ok. > > Although "i386 Dom0", "x86_64 Dom0" and "Scope" sections still need heavy > editing.. I removed them - maybe you missed my updates? > Also, it might be a good idea to mention about this temporary Linux 2.6.27 > Xenlinux repository with dom0 support included (with a patch from Suse): > > http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/linux-2.6.27-xen.hg > > That 2.6.27 kernel is NOT based on pv_ops, but to a forward-port from 2.6.18 > Xenlinux kernel. It is just a temporary tree until pv_ops dom0 is ready. > > Announcement about that temporary 2.6.27 Xenlinux tree: > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-11/msg00600.html It's not really relevant to Fedora - we're not going back to the bad old days of having a separate Xen kernel. We made the call in Fedora 9 to no longer waste effort on any forwarded ported 2.6.18 tree and focus all efforts on upstream pv_ops, since that's where the future lies. Personally, I'm disappointed to see this linux-2.6.27-xen.hg tree appear. Any effort invested in this tree is effort that could be spent on helping with the upstream pv_ops work. > > My advice to anyone wanting to help this along is to build and test > > Jeremy's work and iron out any issues with Fedora's xen userland running > > on it. > > > > Yes, that would be a good idea. > > Does someone want to build some testing RPMs? :) A volunteer to do this would be very welcome indeed :-) Cheers, Mark. -- Fedora-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
