Juan Quintela wrote: [Sat Jul 22 2006, 10:33:50AM EDT]
> > 1. Publish Juan's tree which is the result of his merge of
> > linux-2.6.tip-xen, linux-2.6 and linux-2.6-xen. How about
> > http://people.redhat.com/quintela/linux-2.6.tip-xen-fedora.hg?
> > As things stand right now, it's very difficult for ia64 devs to
> > contribute to Juan's patch, for 2 reasons: (1) we never see it
> > until after a new kernel rpm is published, (2) all we get is the
> > final result, lacking the extremely helpful changeset history.
>
> It is based on 2.6.18-rc2. It is on:
>
> http://hg.et.redhat.com/kernel/linux-2.6-xen-fedora
Thanks Juan, this is a huge help.
> > 2. Use matched xenlinux/hypervisor pairs. At the OLS Xen mini-summit
> > there was some discussion of compatibility. The statements were:
>
> Believe me that we _try_, and very hard.
Thanks, that is good to know. Until now I hadn't heard a statement
from RH regarding that.
I posted a message a while back containing a method for absolutely
matching the hypervisor to the kernel patch:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2006-July/msg00024.html
Is that approximately what you're doing now?
> > - old domU should run on new hypervisor
>
> Agreed. I normally test plain fc5 domU on all my new kernels.
>
> > - new domU NOT guaranteed to run on old hypervisor
>
> We have found that lately this "normally" works, versus bugs.
I'm sorry, your response confuses me here. :-(
Just to be clear: These three bullet points I posted are the stated
goals of Xen upstream. Fedora should assume that a new domU will NOT
run on an old hypervisor, regardless of empirical evidence...
> > - dom0 and hypervisor should be MATCHED
>
> Guess why HV on fedora is on the same package that the kernel, and they
> have indeed the same version number?
:-)
Thanks,
Aron
|
