|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Andi Kleen <ak-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Re: arch/xen is a bad idea|
|| ||Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:43:16 -0800|
|| ||riel-AT-redhat.com, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
to post comments)