Linux Virtualization - Apr 2007 - Paravirt-ops VMI / Xen / lrustyvisor merge status

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 like
some 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.

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