Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:43:16 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: arch/xen is a bad idea |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > > In my opinion it's still an extremly bad idea to have arch/xen > an own architecture.
Guys, I'd like to kick this a bit further down the road. Things still seem to be somewhat deadlocked.
To summarise my understanding:
The Xen team still believe that it's best to keep arch/xen, arch/xen/i386, arch/xen/x86_64, etc. And I believe that Andi (who is the world expert on maintaining an i386 derivative) thinks that this is will be a long-term maintenance problem.
I tend to agree with Andi, and I'm not sure that the Xen team fully appreciate the downside of haveing an own-architecture in the kernel.org kernel and the upside of having their code integrated with the most-maintained architecture. It could be that the potential problems haven't been sufficiently well communicated.
Christian has mentioned that Xen would need to hook into the i386 code in ~60 places, which is somewhat more than Ian's 37-bullet-point list.
I get the impression that the Xen team are overly reluctant to make changes to the arch/i386 code and to arch-neutral kernel code. Don't do that - new abstractions, refactoring and generally moving things about is generally a safe thing to do, and can often make things better anyway.
So. Has anyone changed position or otherwise converged? How do we get this resolved? - 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/
| |