On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 07:00:02AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > That is because there is no way to determine if a CONFIG_PARAVIRT > +CONFIG_XEN kernel can run in domain 0 or not. > > Currently no PARAVIRT kernel supports domain 0 operation but that will > change shortly (in the 2.6.27 time frame I believe) which is why the > entries should be generated. > > > > Second problem: 2.6.25-2-xen-686 or 2.6.18-6-xen-686 without XEN > > > cannot work either. > > A CONFIG_PARAVIRT+CONFIG_XEN kernel will boot on native just fine. > > In fact I suspect you will find the opposite to what you suggest -- this > kernel won't work on top of Xen for the reasons given above (lack of > domain 0 support, it will work in a guest though) and will work fine on > native. > > I think the key piece of information which you need is that > CONFIG_PARAVIRT is designed to allow a single kernel binary to boot both > on native and on various hypervisor technologies (CONFIG_XEN, > CONFIG_VMI, CONFIG_LGUEST) with the switch being made a runtime. This is > in contrast to the old monolithic ports to Xen (up to and including > 2.6.18) where the decision had to be made at compile time.
Thanks Ian! So I assume this bug should be closed? > Whenever I date a guy, I think, is this the man I want my children > to spend their weekends with? > -- Rita Rudner LOL! -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
