On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:56:24PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:44:00PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:26:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:53:52PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > >> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > > > > > > > Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be > > > > > used as > > > > > a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel. > > > > > > > > What about the patches for x86-64 support in domU? If these are going > > > > to be included in 2.6.27 does it mean they qualify [1] to be included > > > > in the kernel for lenny? > > > > > > no. > > > please read a thread before posting to it, that question is already > > > answered twice. > > > > > > > btw out of curiosity do you know if the kernel patch policy was different > > earlier (for etch), because xen kernel for etch (2.6.18-*-xen-686) contains > > non-upstream xen patches (from xensource).. > > xen upstream back then ported forward their own patches *and* everybody > expected their patches to be merged. earliest merge plans were floating > for 2.6.15. >
Ok. This is what I expected happened back then. > reliance on external patches is always bad, kvm is in kernel. > it doesn't try to duplicate dog and cat, but uses linux scheduler > itself and so on.. > Yep. > also if release team still decides to push for 2.6.25, which is > possible if 2.6.26 turns out bad, you still have much less xen > features. > Indeed. This is why the situation with Xen for Lenny is really problematic.. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]