Re: arch/xen is a bad idea

[Andi Kleen]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/