Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:50:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: gnn@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, kip.macy@gmail.com Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? Message-ID: <20071025124816.N16146@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20071022.153310.74664457.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com> <m2bqarl78i.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <20071022.153310.74664457.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Warner Losh wrote: > If it were me, I'd look at having it be a build option, much like PAE is a > build option. PAE has a bigger impact on the i386 world than xen, and it is > only an option. PAE breaks kernel ABIs, while xen doesn't (as far as I > know). PAE changes the size of things like vm_addr_t and bus_addr_t. I > think this would fit best with our current world view and sensabilities. I have to admit that I find the novelty and simplicity of "options XEN" pretty appealing -- I also had been thinking only in terms of a sub-arch and the associated paperwork. I guess the real question is what we lose by doing this -- will ps(1), vmstat(8), kgdb(8), etc, all work transparently across i386 and i386+xen? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071025124816.N16146>