Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- From: Max Laier <max@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:46:52 +0200
On Monday 22 October 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
Let me say in advance that this is not an invitation to discuss the
technical merits of xen. This is purely a request to discuss how one
would structure the tree were one to import it into CVS.
Hypothetically speaking, if one were to import Xen support into CVS
what would be the best way to go about it?
There are a number of choices when doing it as a sub-arch:
- A separate directory for i386 and amd64
- sys/xen-i386
- sys/xen-amd64
This is certainly the most traditional way to do it. The fact that the
xen ports will share (a lot of) code with their respective parent doesn't
change that - pc98 is the precedent here. As it would also allow us to
treat xen as any other architecture without having to spread hacks all
over the build tools.
I'd like to see us moving towards a separate arch/ directory in the long
run, but that belongs - with the new VCS discussion - somewhere else.
There is also a question of where the drivers should be put. I propose
that they would be put under sys/dev/xen, so you would have e.g.
sys/dev/xen/xennet, sys/dev/xen/xenblk etc.
The existence of these drivers are also a reason - to me at least - to
keep xen as a platform of its own.
--
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier@xxxxxxxxxxx
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- From: Kip Macy
- Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- Prev by Date: Re: kthreads, kprocs?
- Next by Date: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- Previous by thread: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- Next by thread: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
