Re: arch/xen is a bad idea

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2004-12-16 at 18:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I guess if we were to go the way which Ian is proposing it would be
> 
> a) Add arch/xen
> 
> b) Spend N weeks integrating xen into arch/i386, while also separately
>    maintaining arch/xen.
> 
> c) Remove arch/xen
> 
> So...  why not skip a), c) and half of b)?

Because until xen is in the kernel it won't get good exposure
Because nobody is sure that b) needs to occur or would occur for another
year our two (Xen3)

Xen is not "a slightly x86 arch variant" (and a slight ia64 arch
variant) Xen is quite different in its design and its performance comes
from exactly that - paravirtualisation by being a virtual CPU that isn't
a true x86 is very very fast.

b is a long term research project it is not a "clean this up next month"
project as I understand it. 


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/