On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:20:19PM +0200, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote: > >>So all in all I think for me this aquisition is good news. I think most > >>problems with xen comes from xensource as it's they only product > >>generating income and for that reason the opensource version seems to > >>get less care than the version you can buy from them. (This is just my > >>opinion so it's not necessarily so) > >> > > > >I think Xensource is putting a lot of effort into opensource Xen. > > > >It's just the dom0/pv_ops mess that's causing problems atm.. that _should_ > >get fixed in the near future. > > > > > I have noticed that. But main reason for my feeling is that they should > have started the push much more early than they did. Or maybe it wasn't > feasible before. Anyway it's just have been my feeling of the whole > thing and I think it's good to have two competing techs as it will > provide that both will advance. > Yeah well.. IIRC Xen patches were first sent for 2.6.15 kernel. Those were rejected and not integrated into vanilla kernel. I can't remember the reason for that. Next attempt failed when others wanted to have the paravirt ops (pv_ops) framework instead, which enables Linux kernel PV support for any hypervisor, not just for Xen. Then it took a while to get the generic pv_ops framework done and merged into Linux kernel. And after that it has taken a lot of time to port the Xen domU from the original "Xenlinux" to pv_ops framework. pv_ops Xen domU support has been in mainline Linux kernel since 2.6.23. And now there is active development going on to get the pv_ops dom0 working and merged into Linux. Btw Redhat started this work earlier, and it is now being continued by Xensource (Jeremy Fitzhardinge). http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps -- Pasi -- Fedora-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
