From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vincent Hanquez Subject: Re: linux/arch/xen/i386 or linux/arch/i386/xen Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:00:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20050518190045.GB24549@snarc.org> References: <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD542CE25@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> <20050518164748.GR27549@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050518164748.GR27549@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Chris Wright Cc: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Mark Williamson , Vincent Hanquez List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:47:48AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) (dan.magenheimer@hp.com) wrote: > > Um, one other minor semantic issue. The semantics of > > using mach-xxx may be inappropriate. If my understanding > > is correct, two mach-xxx's cannot both be built, e.g. one > > cannot build a kernel which supports (for i386) both > > mach-es7000 and mach-voyager. > > Yes, I had thought about this. It's not clear to me it's problematic yet. I guess it could be, as if I understood correctly Keir's later post, we would like to run on other subarch. > The primary goal is to avoid code duplication to keep maintenance sane. > Clean way to do that is what really matters. indeed. > > xen generic code in drivers/xen/core/ > > yup (although no need for core/ subdir) there's already some directories in drivers/xen/ for xen's drivers. so keeping core/ would probably be clearer. -- Vincent Hanquez