From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 22 17:25:56 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223AA16A417 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rink@rink.nu) Received: from mx1.rink.nu (thunderstone.rink.nu [80.112.228.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E6E13C48E for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rink@rink.nu) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.rink.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F196D445; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rink.nu Received: from mx1.rink.nu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (thunderstone.rink.nu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aSKNeTOg779w; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mx1.rink.nu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3E71A6D43A; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:03 +0200 From: Rink Springer To: Kip Macy Message-ID: <20071022170903.GD2251@rink.nu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:56 -0000 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