AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Bruce.Edge@lsi.com>,<Craig.Rolandelli@lsi.com>,<Chuck.Nichols@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	4ACF4E65.7010003@lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:29:36 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Edge, Bruce" <Bruce.Edge@lsi.com>
Cc: "Rolandelli, Craig" <Craig.Rolandelli@lsi.com>, "Nichols, Chuck"
 <Chuck.Nichols@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: Xen alignment options
Message-ID: <20091009092936.38df3035@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4ACF4E65.7010003@lsi.com>
References: <4ACF4E65.7010003@lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:53:25 -0600 "Edge, Bruce" <Bruce.Edge@lsi.com>
wrote:

> Craig, Chuck, Andy,
> 
> I'm not convinced that a Citrix XenServer is the best option for LSI
> even if support is the primary reason. If we were using Xen for
> server consolidation in an IT environment that would be a different
> story, but we're not.
> 
> We have recently been working through a problem with the MSI in Xen
> relating to IRQ affinity. One day after posting the problems details
> on the xen-devel list, we were directed to the author of that code
> within Xen, who subsequently told us what debug options to add, and a
> request for more information. This Xen developer also states that
> we're better off with the leading edge, Xen 3.5 (unstable), for new
> development work especially for new hardware support.
> 
> The fact is that we're developing kernel code on leading edge
> hardware that's pushing the development envelope of Xen itself. I
> can't see how committing to using an earlier static version of Xen is
> the best option for those requirements.
> 
> -Bruce

I concur.  This sort of thing will be continuing occurance.  Put
another way, I don't believe there's a "no-brainer" way of doing this.

a
