John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> writes: > I suspect most Xen boxes are servers (possibly even headless) > so I'm not overly concerned about missing grahpics support (I know > there are some that will be). I'm more concerned about things like > missing SCSI HAs and missing NICs, which has happened. Fixing this > kind of problem (and maybe adding a comment to the top of GENERIC > to remind people) would be appreciated. I'm waffling on the idea > of resorting XEN3_DOM0 to make it easier to compare to GENERIC. > On one hand, it will make it easier to spot missing things (if > deliberate, there should be a comment). But, on the other hand, > it will be annoying for people with custom configs based on XEN3_DOM0. > Although, this would be a one time issue. Thanks for the comments. Looking at the diff, I think it's likely that most people's custom XEN3_DOM0 kernels are only minorly different and I suspect many of them add in what they need for hardware that ought to be part of a sync. My guess is that the total pain imposed on those people will be small compared to the benefit for all of reduced confusion. In particular the pckkc attachment bug cost me about 100 merges worth of time :-) I'm likely to make a number of syncing commits, trying to keep them understandable, and actually boot testing those that aren't just reordering and comments. My view is that any particular thing I add while syncing can be commented out with a reason if it turns out to be trouble, and that most things are likely to be ok. @all: speak up if this plan bothers you.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature