Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:03 +0200 From: Rink Springer <rink@FreeBSD.org> To: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? Message-ID: <20071022170903.GD2251@rink.nu> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com> References: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Kip, On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 08:56:35PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote: > - A shared directory as most of the bits will be shared: > - sys/xen - common bits > - sys/xen/i386 - i386 specific bits > - sys/xen/amd64 - amd64 specific bits This is what I'd prefer - i386/amd64 as separate dir under sys/xen. > 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: I wouldn't go for a build option; I'd prefer to make it seperate, as I fear making it a seperate build option would introduce needless clutter which can easily be avoided. > 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. That sounds fine to me. -- Rink P.W. Springer - http://rink.nu "root is always right" -- the kernel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071022170903.GD2251>