* Andi Kleen (ak at suse.de) wrote: > On Friday 04 August 2006 20:34, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Chris said, and I agree, that we should try to get the basic PV-ops > > infrastructure stuff into 2.6.19. To me this means being able to run a > > kernel native with CONFIG_PARAVIRT, and see little or no functional or > > performance degradation. What do we need to do to get there: > > > > * fix the slowdown bug, which seems to be something to do with > > rdmsr/wrmsr on SMP systems > > * work out how to handle all the low-level system interfaces, like > > ACPI, PnP BIOS, APM > > * what else? > > You're already too late for most of this. The merge window will > open in the forseeable future and you don't have had significant > -mm* or x86_64-* testing yet and in general stuff is still > very fresh. > > Maybe we can get some basic "obvious" stuff like a few > macro substitutions in (if you submit them properly), but probably not > the full support. I don't agree. We've got the first bit of obvious stuff posted and queued up. There's a bit more, then the final piece is #ifdef that means none of the new code will even get compiled for non CONFIG_PARAVIRT users (mark it as experimental, default = N, etc). Then we have a safe place to push things up w/out disturbing others. IOW, at that point it's like a new device driver, or fs, or arch....those can merge quite late. Not saying it's not agressive, but I don't think it's obviously too late. thanks, -chris
