From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262612AbULPBgw (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:36:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262571AbULPBSR (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:18:17 -0500 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:35713 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262567AbULPAvW (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:51:22 -0500 Subject: Re: No Subject From: Alan Cox To: Andi Kleen Cc: Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk, Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk, Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk, Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk, akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , riel@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <41BF1983.mailP9C1B91GB@suse.de> References: <41BF1983.mailP9C1B91GB@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1103154617.3585.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:50:18 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The Xen interface seems to me better described that most of the kernel interfaces and has more papers written on it. I would rather see arch/xen and public exposure and use of the platform before considering major redesigns. The s390 people have proved we can remove/fold arch directories effectively and after original implementation without problems. I'm not convinced by your arguments about arch/xen although I am long term in favour because I'd like see it easy to build a kernel which can be used without Xen and can switch into Xen guest mode on Xen loading. Alan