Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:22:11 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? Message-ID: <ffi121$m73$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com> References: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kip Macy wrote: > It could, in principle, also be done as a build option. I'm not sure > how well it would mesh with the existing build tools as there are a > number of files that I would not want to compile in (e.g. code that > talked directly to the BIOS) that is normally built by default. In > that case I would structure it: > > - sys/i386/xen - xen specific bits for i386 > - sys/amd64/xen - xen specific bits for amd64 I can only speak as an end-user: could it be done so that the Xen-enabled kernel is bootable on a normal non-virtualized machine? In this case it would be ideal if it's implemented as a build option, so people can share kernels across the machines. If not, then it certainly looks like a separate architecture. > There is also a question of where the drivers should be put. I propose > that they would be put under sys/dev/xen, so you would have e.g. > sys/dev/xen/xennet, sys/dev/xen/xenblk etc. In the above case (build option), this looks reasonable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ffi121$m73$1>