From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 25 11:50:31 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 1031D16A420;
	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:50:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F2513C48A;
	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:50:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AB646F3E;
	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:50:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071022.153310.74664457.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20071025124816.N16146@fledge.watson.org>
References: <b1fa29170710212056x5649a858n5202b78fc3e55589@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2bqarl78i.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com>
	<20071022.153310.74664457.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: gnn@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, kip.macy@gmail.com
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 <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:50:31 -0000

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