|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|
Andi Kleen <email@example.com> 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?
Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds