[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: arch/xen is a bad idea
    On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 01:14:09AM +0000, Ian Pratt wrote:
    > The other key area is that our top priority is to decrease the
    > number of files we need to modified from standard i386. For this
    > to happen, we need to submit patches into i386 that abstract a
    > few things behind macros/constants. For example, we'd like to
    > abstract the test to see whether the CPU is in the kernel or not
    > (we run the kernel in ring 1 rather than 0). If arch xen is in
    > the tree, this kind of patch will make rather more sense to
    > people.

    That would be a good first step, especially if it results in cleanups.
    Please go for it.

    > I don't see it like that. While continuing to track changes in
    > i386/x86_64, we'd restructure the code under arch xen such that
    > it could build (or even boot) time switch between running native
    > and over Xen. At some point the arch directory could then be
    > renamed. This would be a big project, and one that would involve

    This sounds like a massive duplication of effort. You would need
    to do all that work on arch/xen and in parallel on the native
    port for the slow merge, and in parallel track a changing target
    and keep the code usable in mainline.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.025 / U:3.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site