Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:17:00 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Roger Pau Monn? <roger.pau@citrix.com> Cc: "freebsd-xen@freebsd.org" <freebsd-xen@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: xn ethernet issues as DOMU under NetBSD DOM0 FIXED! Message-ID: <20160517101700.GB89104@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20160517094301.h4oa4nyyakbj7r3h@mac> References: <C4D720DD281F6740AC917B82741E9AD2AB27EC33@505MBX1.corp.vnw.com> <20160512162247.64x5hyud5i2jfgqy@mac> <CADGo8CXix6yqxFJD_xkkLP-ua6sYd_ddw4NFwAe%2BCj-nVVNqZg@mail.gmail.com> <CADGo8CWv0J6n2D-1LTF2j9=%2Bg7O2fB8twdjq7Zf%2BgWzqVx3_6A@mail.gmail.com> <20160517094301.h4oa4nyyakbj7r3h@mac>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:43:01AM +0200, Roger Pau Monn? wrote: > With previous FreeBSD 9.X versions, in order to get Xen support you had to > compile a specific kernel (XENHVM), we wanted to remove this for FreeBSD 10, > so we included the Xen components into the GENERIC kernel and made sure > there were no weird interactions on bare metal. However, this change was > too big to merge into 9, so in order to try to improve the situation on 9 > Colin decided to pack all the Xen support into a kernel module, in order to > remove the need to compile a specific kernel for Xen VMs. Why the module is a bad idea on HEAD/10.x ? To explain further, I do not object against Xen code included into GENERIC. I am interested in the possibility of the stripped down kernel (without XEN options) which can be made operable on HVM with the module preloaded.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160517101700.GB89104>