Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option?

[Max Laier]

On Monday 22 October 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
> Let me say in advance that this is not an invitation to discuss the
> technical merits of xen. This is purely a request to discuss how one
> would structure the tree were one to import it into CVS.
>
> Hypothetically speaking, if one were to import Xen support into CVS
> what would be the best way to go about it?
>
> There are a number of choices when doing it as a sub-arch:
>   - A separate directory for i386 and amd64
>       - sys/xen-i386
>       - sys/xen-amd64

This is certainly the most traditional way to do it.  The fact that the 
xen ports will share (a lot of) code with their respective parent doesn't 
change that - pc98 is the precedent here.  As it would also allow us to 
treat xen as any other architecture without having to spread hacks all 
over the build tools.

I'd like to see us moving towards a separate arch/ directory in the long 
run, but that belongs - with the new VCS discussion - somewhere else.

> 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.

The existence of these drivers are also a reason - to me at least - to 
keep xen as a platform of its own.

-- 
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier at freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier at EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20071022/1e72beac/attachment.pgp