Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Saturday 28 April 2007 09:52:30 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Well, not really. The problem with the subarch mechanism is that it
>> promotes a lot of copied code with small modifications, and so making
>> changes is the inherently non-general activity of trying to find all the
>> various copies, work out what subtle differences they have, and try to
>> make the appropriate changes in each case. This was one of the major
>> objections to the original Xen-as-subarch patches, and it is the problem
>> with Voyager. The mass of preprocessor tricks doesn't help either.
>
> Yes I agree. Current i386 subarch is a mess and I hope to slowly phase
> it out. mach-{es7000,summit} should just be folded into mach-generic
> always (like x86-64) and I'm somewhat hoping that mach-voyager and
> perhaps mach-visws too will just go away at some point.
There is a possibility, that arch/i386 will seen renewed life as an
embedded architecture. At which point things like mach-visws may
start proliferating.
So I think it makes a lot of sense to see if we can fold mach-visws
and mach-voyager into appropriate pluggable interfaces.
Xen is stranger than anything voyager does.
> The future direction are focussed pluggable interfaces like genapic, smp_ops
> etc.
Sounds good. Although it may be nice to do the standard platform
trick of having them compile out if you only compile for one
subarchitecture.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
