|From:||"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk>|
|To:||"Andrew Morton" <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak-AT-suse.de>|
|Subject:||RE: arch/xen is a bad idea|
|Date:||Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:07:45 -0000|
|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>, <ian.pratt-AT-cl.cam.ac.uk>|
> 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 think there's an interim compromise position that everyone might go for: Phase 1 is for us to submit a load of patches that squeeze out the low hanging fruit in unifying xen/i386 and i386. Most of these will be strict cleanups to i386, and the result will be to almost halve the number of files that we need to modify. The next phase is that we re-organise the current arch/xen as follows: We move the remaining (reduced) contents of arch/xen/i386 to arch/i386/xen (ditto for x86_64). We then move the xen-specific files that are shared between all the different xen architectures to drivers/xen/core. I know this last step is a bit odd, but it's the best location that Rusty Russel and I could come up with. At this point, I'd hope that we could get xen into the main-line tree. The final phase is to see if we can further unify more native and xen files. This is going to require some significant i386 code refactoring, and I think its going to be much easier to do if all the code is in the main-line tree so that people can see the motivation for what's going on. What do you think? Best, Ian
Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds