Xen devel - Dec 2006 - Timeline for migrating to newer Linux kernels?

What is the schedule/plan for moving the Xen linux kernel development to
the something far nearer the tip of the kernel.org tree?

 

We are using Xen on newer platforms using the G965 chipsets, for which
feature support was only recently added to the Linux kernel.  Several
features of the chipset are not enabled under 2.6.16-29. 

 

 

Thanks 

 

John Zulauf

Intel Corporation



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Zulauf, John wrote:
> What is the schedule/plan for moving the Xen linux kernel development to 
> the something far nearer the tip of the kernel.org tree?
This has been an ongoing issue for well over the last year.

XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
to tracking the upstream kernel.  I suspect they''ll be
obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future,
because those will just be there in the upstream kernel
while Xen won''t.

If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
in the future, they''ll want to seriously pursue an upstream
merge of their code.

At the moment Xen is still the leader when it comes to features
and performance (http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/TechComparison),
but who knows how long that will last?

-- 
Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country
the best in the world, and those who believe it already is.  Each group
calls the other unpatriotic.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 1/1/07 12:21 am, "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
> to tracking the upstream kernel.  I suspect they''ll be
> obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future,
> because those will just be there in the upstream kernel
> while Xen won''t.
> 
> If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
> in the future, they''ll want to seriously pursue an upstream
> merge of their code.
There are ongoing efforts from (at least) XenSource, Novell, Red Hat and IBM
to merge Xen support into upstream Linux. The paravirt_ops infrastructure is
already merged for 2.6.20 and we will hopefully see implementations of the
new interface, including Xen, merged for 2.6.21.

As for the Linux sparse tree in xen-unstable, it will be upgraded and moved
to a separate repository before 3.0.5. With the guest kernel interfaces
having been stable for some time, it makes lots of sense to separate
hypervisor development and its release cycle from that of guest kernels.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Rik van Riel wrote:
> If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
> in the future, they''ll want to seriously pursue an upstream
> merge of their code.
That''s an active project.  The paravirt ops patches have been laying
the
groundwork, and I''m planning on posting the Xen patches based on it in
the next few days when I get back from vacation.  Once Xen is in the
kernel, the parallel project will be to make the hg Xen tree sync with
it.  There will still need to be some external patches, but they will
diminish over time.

    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:44:30PM +0000, Keir Fraser
wrote:
> On 1/1/07 12:21 am, "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
> > to tracking the upstream kernel.  I suspect they''ll be
> > obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future,
> > because those will just be there in the upstream kernel
> > while Xen won''t.
> > 
> > If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
> > in the future, they''ll want to seriously pursue an upstream
> > merge of their code.
> 
> There are ongoing efforts from (at least) XenSource, Novell, Red Hat and
IBM
> to merge Xen support into upstream Linux. The paravirt_ops infrastructure
is
> already merged for 2.6.20 and we will hopefully see implementations of the
> new interface, including Xen, merged for 2.6.21.
> 
> As for the Linux sparse tree in xen-unstable, it will be upgraded and moved
> to a separate repository before 3.0.5. With the guest kernel interfaces
> having been stable for some time, it makes lots of sense to separate
> hypervisor development and its release cycle from that of guest kernels.
When you say ''guest'' kernel interfaces are you simply refering
to DomU,
or also Dom0 ?  Having a separate repository / tree which only did the
DomU kernel would be little use for Fedora, because we track the latest
upstream kernels for both Dom0 and DomU. So I''d hope the separate
kernel
tree would cover Dom0 & DomU - is this what''s planned ?

Regards,
Dan.
-- 
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston.  +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=-           Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-               Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-  GnuPG: 7D3B9505   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505  -=| 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 2/1/07 09:49, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
wrote:
>> As for the Linux sparse tree in xen-unstable, it will be upgraded and
moved
>> to a separate repository before 3.0.5. With the guest kernel interfaces
>> having been stable for some time, it makes lots of sense to separate
>> hypervisor development and its release cycle from that of guest
kernels.
> 
> When you say ''guest'' kernel interfaces are you simply
refering to DomU,
> or also Dom0 ?  Having a separate repository / tree which only did the
> DomU kernel would be little use for Fedora, because we track the latest
> upstream kernels for both Dom0 and DomU. So I''d hope the separate
kernel
> tree would cover Dom0 & DomU - is this what''s planned ?
We will have a separate repository that has the same feature set as the
current integrated sparse tree -- i.e., it will support both dom0 and domU.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 04:44:30PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 1/1/07 12:21 am, "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> XenSource has usually been less than useful when it comes
>>> to tracking the upstream kernel.  I suspect they''ll be
>>> obsoleted by KVM and/or lhype at some point in the future,
>>> because those will just be there in the upstream kernel
>>> while Xen won''t.
>>>
>>> If XenSource has any intention of having Xen stay relevant
>>> in the future, they''ll want to seriously pursue an
upstream
>>> merge of their code.
>>
>> There are ongoing efforts from (at least) XenSource, Novell, Red  
>> Hat and IBM
>> to merge Xen support into upstream Linux. The paravirt_ops  
>> infrastructure is
>> already merged for 2.6.20 and we will hopefully see  
>> implementations of the
>> new interface, including Xen, merged for 2.6.21.
>>
>> As for the Linux sparse tree in xen-unstable, it will be upgraded  
>> and moved
>> to a separate repository before 3.0.5. With the guest kernel  
>> interfaces
>> having been stable for some time, it makes lots of sense to separate
>> hypervisor development and its release cycle from that of guest  
>> kernels.
Sorry for the disconnected reply, but is there a time line for this?
how can other help?
The xen-ppc team is lagging behind both kernel.org and sen-unstable  
and we''ve lost all hope of regaining a common root.

-JX


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel