Xen devel - May 2008 - Re: [Xen-changelog] [xen-unstable] i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable wrote:
> i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.
Can you explain this a bit further?

john

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

On 8/5/08 20:05, "John Levon" <levon@movementarian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable wrote:
> 
>> i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.
> 
> Can you explain this a bit further?
It hasn''t been regularly tested for some time, it is not shipped by any
vendor afaik, and all guest ports with a significant ongoing development
effort behind them now support PAE and/or 64-bit modes. Further, a test of
the waters on xen-devel back in March did not elicit much of a response in
support of non-pae. Removing it gets rid of a column on the test matrix (a
column which isn''t tested by anyone anyway) and goes some way to reduce
our
ifdef maze in many memory-management source files.

 -- Keir



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

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:04:59PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable wrote:
> > 
> >> i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.
> > 
> > Can you explain this a bit further?
> 
> It hasn''t been regularly tested for some time, it is not shipped
by any
> vendor afaik, and all guest ports with a significant ongoing development
> effort behind them now support PAE and/or 64-bit modes. Further, a test of
> the waters on xen-devel back in March did not elicit much of a response in
> support of non-pae.
I completely missed this discussion[1] - fair enough.

regards,
john

[1]
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-03/msg00380.html

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

On 8/5/08 21:49, "John Levon" <levon@movementarian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 09:04:59PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
>>> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.
>>> 
>>> Can you explain this a bit further?
>> 
>> It hasn''t been regularly tested for some time, it is not
shipped by any
>> vendor afaik, and all guest ports with a significant ongoing
development
>> effort behind them now support PAE and/or 64-bit modes. Further, a test
of
>> the waters on xen-devel back in March did not elicit much of a response
in
>> support of non-pae.
> 
> I completely missed this discussion[1] - fair enough.
I should probably have added a reference to that email thread, or summary of
it, in the changeset comments. Apologies for that.

 -- Keir



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

>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> 08.05.08 22:04
>>>
>On 8/5/08 20:05, "John Levon" <levon@movementarian.org>
wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Xen patchbot-unstable wrote:
>> 
>>> i386: Remove non-PAE hypervisor build target.
>> 
>> Can you explain this a bit further?
>
>It hasn''t been regularly tested for some time, it is not shipped by
any
>vendor afaik,
We are just about to ship 3.2.0 including non-PAE support in SLE10 SP2.
While I''m unsure about version updates for future service packs (this
simply hasn''t been decided yet), we''ll definitely have to
maintain non-PAE
for the life time of SLE10, so a step like this makes our life harder.
>and all guest ports with a significant ongoing development
>effort behind them now support PAE and/or 64-bit modes. Further, a test of
>the waters on xen-devel back in March did not elicit much of a response in
>support of non-pae. Removing it gets rid of a column on the test matrix (a
>column which isn''t tested by anyone anyway) and goes some way to
reduce our
>ifdef maze in many memory-management source files.
Regardless of my comment above, I understand all this, and it is for the
same reason that we decided to drop non-PAE support for future products.

Jan


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

On 9/5/08 08:33, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>> It hasn''t been regularly tested for some time, it is not
shipped by any
>> vendor afaik,
> 
> We are just about to ship 3.2.0 including non-PAE support in SLE10 SP2.
> While I''m unsure about version updates for future service packs
(this
> simply hasn''t been decided yet), we''ll definitely have to
maintain non-PAE
> for the life time of SLE10, so a step like this makes our life harder.
We aren''t dropping non-PAE from any stable branch. On the other hand,
we''re
not testing it either (but then we haven''t for a long while already!).
But
you can ride the 3.2 branch without any nasty surprises.

 -- Keir



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