X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail.squbes.com (squbes.com [208.74.142.49]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DB81EC80D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.252.1.28] (unknown [208.74.141.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nangel@nothome.org) by mail.squbes.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F61C50001CA7; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49DA4E6E.5060600@nothome.org> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:48:14 -0400 From: Nathan Angelacos User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103) X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Natanael Copa CC: Alpine-devel Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] xen support in default kernel References: <1239028357.26439.24.camel@nc> In-Reply-To: <1239028357.26439.24.camel@nc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Natanael Copa wrote: > The default kernel (named linux-grsec in 1.9.x) have paravirt enabled. A > user here asked for xen support too which is not there currently. > > The problem is that this requires that kernel is compiled for i586. We > currently do 486. > > IIRC there was some newer cpus (found in TU-40?) that basicly is a > faster 486 CPU. Looks like the TU-40 is a 586 chip. The Ebox-2300SX was a custom "486" chip, but was basically unusable anyway - they got rid of it and moved to a 586 chipset > > So, the question is, should we say that i596 is required for default > kernel, and support xen paravirtualization by default? Or should we make > a separate xenlinux kernel, with full xen support (live migration etc). > i586 should be sufficiently ancient, IMHO. Looks like even the AMD Geode processors on PC Engine's Alix boards will work with i586. > I tend to think that the default kernel should work with as much as > possible, but have some optimized kernel flavors for different needs. > For example linux-grsec for the real lowend without highmem, smp and > largblock deveices. > > The drawback with many kernels is that it takes some extra time to > compile things. For example dahdi-linux driver and iscsi dirvers will be > need to be recompiled for each kernel flavor. This should ideally be > fully automated, but it is not right now. > Just wonder if "custom kernel" means "you compile it yourself" - this might be a place for more volunteers to step forward and maintain the custom kernels, if they desire. --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---