User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: arch/xen is a bad idea

From:  Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>
To:  Andi Kleen <ak-AT-suse.de>
Subject:  Re: arch/xen is a bad idea
Date:  Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:43:16 -0800
Cc:  riel-AT-redhat.com, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Ian.Pratt-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk, Steven.Hand-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk, Christian.Limpach-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk, Keir.Fraser-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

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?


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds