Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:21:56 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 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.
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |