On Friday 09 February 2007 06:28, Zachary Amsden wrote:> So, as 2.6.21-rc1 is approaching, what is the upstream merge status for > the paravirt-ops backends? I believe VMI is in Andi's tree, plus or > minus some bugfixes that are still being whittled in, but Andi, do you > think the VMI code is in good shape for merging?I don't know in what shape it is in as it hasn't been tested by me.>From the looks it looks reasonable enough for merging. But I didn't likesome of your recent updates. -Andi
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 21:28 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:> So, as 2.6.21-rc1 is approaching, what is the upstream merge status for > the paravirt-ops backends? I believe VMI is in Andi's tree, plus or > minus some bugfixes that are still being whittled in, but Andi, do you > think the VMI code is in good shape for merging? > > It would be nice for everyone to clarify their upstream plans - is the > goal still to get Xen and lguest merged for the next kernel release? > > Rusty, you mentioned you had a patchset to push, when do you expect to > have it ready?I'm just doing the final file moving now (everything in arch/i386/lguest), expect to send out something within 48 hours (I need to sync up to latest git tree, too).> One of which is separating the paravirt-ops into GPL > and non-GPL exports, which we need consensus on where the line is, but > can't really achieve it until everyone is happy with the finalized set > of paravirt-ops. Any patch that tries to do this now would just cause > rejects later and slow all of our merges.Yes, I have a patch, but it breaks kvm. I'm waiting until things settle before fixing it. Cheers, Rusty.
Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-Apr-18 17:49 UTC
Paravirt-ops VMI / Xen / lrustyvisor merge status
Zachary Amsden wrote:> Chris / Jeremy - perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen updated Xen > paravirt-ops patches go out yet - is 2.6.21 still the merge target?Yes. I spent today updating to address the review comments, and I think Chris is in the process of rebasing to .20 for a repost soon (tomorrow?).> I don't want to be pushy, but I do want our code to get merged, and > time's a ticking.Me too. I'm eager to be getting on to something else (which probably means SMP at this point). J
So, as 2.6.21-rc1 is approaching, what is the upstream merge status for the paravirt-ops backends? I believe VMI is in Andi's tree, plus or minus some bugfixes that are still being whittled in, but Andi, do you think the VMI code is in good shape for merging? It would be nice for everyone to clarify their upstream plans - is the goal still to get Xen and lguest merged for the next kernel release? Rusty, you mentioned you had a patchset to push, when do you expect to have it ready? Chris / Jeremy - perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen updated Xen paravirt-ops patches go out yet - is 2.6.21 still the merge target? I don't want to be pushy, but I do want our code to get merged, and time's a ticking. I think we're all in good shape, but the sooner the code all gets merged the sooner we can tackle the remaining cleanup / polishing tasks. One of which is separating the paravirt-ops into GPL and non-GPL exports, which we need consensus on where the line is, but can't really achieve it until everyone is happy with the finalized set of paravirt-ops. Any patch that tries to do this now would just cause rejects later and slow all of our merges. Zach