Hello! Keir: What''s the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the new ''standard'' for development and testing? There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere.. I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0 kernel options, where to get them and how to use them. I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they''re still easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user. Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let the community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users understand they''re "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained? All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0.. Just trying to think of all the confused users out there.. -- Pasi _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Pasi, The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer community.>From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt. The2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 tree... If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d be happy to oblige. -- Keir On 30/06/2009 13:07, "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi> wrote:> Hello! > > Keir: What''s the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the > new ''standard'' for development and testing? > > There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing > lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere.. > > I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0 > kernel options, where to get them and how to use them. > > I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they''re still > easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user. > > Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let > the > community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users > understand they''re "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained? > > All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0.. > > Just trying to think of all the confused users out there.. > > -- Pasi_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keir Fraser<keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> Pasi, > > The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we > made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest > that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer > community. > > From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt. The > 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch > and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., > xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and > made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 > tree... > > If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse > port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d > be happy to oblige. > > -- KeirI''ve already rebased the latest suse patches for 2.6.30 and will be releasing the patches once I''ve tested the kernels, like 2.6.29 the changes required to apply the patches to vanilla were quite small so hopefully it will prove to be as stable as 2.6.29 which was very good, unfortunately I''ve been in hospital for emergency surgery a couple of weeks ago and I will be going back in soon for some more surgery so I''ve not been very active recently and will not be for another month to 6 weeks. Andy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:03:39PM +0100, Andrew Lyon wrote:> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keir Fraser<keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > Pasi, > > > > The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we > > made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest > > that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer > > community. > > > > From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt. The > > 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch > > and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., > > xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and > > made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 > > tree... > > > > If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse > > port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d > > be happy to oblige. > > > > -- Keir > > > I''ve already rebased the latest suse patches for 2.6.30 and will be > releasing the patches once I''ve tested the kernels, like 2.6.29 the > changes required to apply the patches to vanilla were quite small so > hopefully it will prove to be as stable as 2.6.29 which was very good >Nice. It seems you''ve gotten familiar with the patches.. should we ask for Keir to create a tree on xenbits for these kernel patches? I''m sure others would help you with maintaining the patches.> unfortunately I''ve been in hospital for emergency surgery a couple of > weeks ago and I will be going back in soon for some more surgery so > I''ve not been very active recently and will not be for another month > to 6 weeks. >Hopefully everything goes (and is) fine! -- Pasi _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:43:23PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:> Pasi, > > The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we > made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest > that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer > community. >Yep.> From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt.I''ll try to make a wiki page next week..> The 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch > and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., > xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and > made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 > tree... > > If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse > port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d > be happy to oblige. >Let''s see.. I suggested/asked if Andrew wants to do that :) -- Pasi> -- Keir > > On 30/06/2009 13:07, "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi> wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > Keir: What''s the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the > > new ''standard'' for development and testing? > > > > There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing > > lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere.. > > > > I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0 > > kernel options, where to get them and how to use them. > > > > I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they''re still > > easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user. > > > > Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let > > the > > community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users > > understand they''re "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained? > > > > All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0.. > > > > Just trying to think of all the confused users out there.. > > > > -- Pasi > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Pasi Kärkkäinen
2009-Jul-06 14:02 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen dom0 kernels / wiki page online
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:33:01PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:43:23PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > Pasi, > > > > The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we > > made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest > > that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer > > community. > > > > Yep. > > > From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt. > > > I''ll try to make a wiki page next week.. >And now it''s done: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels Feel free to add, edit and fix it :) -- Pasi> > The 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch > > and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., > > xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and > > made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 > > tree... > > > > If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse > > port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d > > be happy to oblige. > > > > Let''s see.. I suggested/asked if Andrew wants to do that :) > > -- Pasi > > > -- Keir > > > > On 30/06/2009 13:07, "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > Keir: What''s the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the > > > new ''standard'' for development and testing? > > > > > > There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing > > > lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere.. > > > > > > I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0 > > > kernel options, where to get them and how to use them. > > > > > > I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they''re still > > > easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user. > > > > > > Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let > > > the > > > community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users > > > understand they''re "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained? > > > > > > All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0.. > > > > > > Just trying to think of all the confused users out there.. > > > > > > -- Pasi > > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Pasi Kärkkäinen
2009-Jul-06 14:40 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen dom0 kernels / wiki page online
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 05:02:49PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 01:33:01PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 01:43:23PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > Pasi, > > > > > > The pv_ops dom0 does indeed seem not yet ready for general use. The fact we > > > made it the default kernel to build in xen-unstable.hg was not to suggest > > > that it was however, but to get more exposure and testing from the developer > > > community. > > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > From a user point of view, some documentation would be great, no doubt. > > > > > > I''ll try to make a wiki page next week.. > > > > And now it''s done: > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels > > Feel free to add, edit and fix it :) >Hmm.. should we link this XenDom0Kernels page from the Xen wiki mainpage? It seems I don''t have permissions for that.. -- Pasi> > > > The 2.6.18 tree is still available (and still the default kernel for 3.4 branch > > > and earlier). Then there are the 2.6.27 trees based on the suse port (e.g., > > > xenbits/XCI, which could potentially be pulled out of the XCI project and > > > made a first-class maintenance tree in its own right). And Andrew''s 2.6.29 > > > tree... > > > > > > If someone wants to actively maintain a 2.6.29+ tree based on the ''suse > > > port'' / ''classic Xen patches'' and wants xenbits space for that reason, we''d > > > be happy to oblige. > > > > > > > Let''s see.. I suggested/asked if Andrew wants to do that :) > > > > -- Pasi > > > > > -- Keir > > > > > > On 30/06/2009 13:07, "Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > Keir: What''s the current plan with the dom0 kernels? pv_ops dom0 will be the > > > > new ''standard'' for development and testing? > > > > > > > > There are a lot of confused people asking about Xen dom0 kernels on mailing > > > > lists, on irc, on forums, everywhere.. > > > > > > > > I think we should create a xenwiki page that explains the current dom0 > > > > kernel options, where to get them and how to use them. > > > > > > > > I think we should also list the OpenSUSE forward-ports, since they''re still > > > > easier and more stable option than pv_ops dom0 for average user. > > > > > > > > Would it be clever to make trees for these forward-ports on xenbits, and let > > > > the > > > > community (Andrew Lyon and others) to maintain them.. just making sure users > > > > understand they''re "temporary" for the time being, and community maintained? > > > > > > > > All the new development efforts should be obviously used to pv_ops dom0.. > > > > > > > > Just trying to think of all the confused users out there.. > > > > > > > > -- Pasi > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel