From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk, riel@redhat.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk, Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk,
Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: arch/xen is a bad idea
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:57:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1103223432.21823.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041216102652.6a5104d2.akpm@osdl.org>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-16 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <41BF1983.mailP9C1B91GB@suse.de.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-12-14 18:59 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-14 19:35 ` Antonio Vargas
2004-12-14 22:40 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-15 4:49 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 0:09 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 4:01 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 12:54 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 14:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 13:19 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 14:28 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 20:37 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 18:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-16 18:57 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2004-12-16 21:00 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 21:03 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-16 21:36 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 21:39 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-17 6:04 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-17 8:26 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 22:04 ` Philip R Auld
2004-12-16 23:08 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-17 2:07 ` Philip R Auld
2004-12-17 6:03 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-15 11:49 ` Pavel Machek
2004-12-16 1:14 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 1:26 ` Pavel Machek
2004-12-16 14:21 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 22:45 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-12-16 23:09 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-20 15:08 ` arch/xen clue? Dorn Hetzel
2004-12-20 15:15 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-20 15:23 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2004-12-20 15:34 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-12-15 11:51 ` arch/xen is a bad idea Pavel Machek
2004-12-17 16:05 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-12-18 17:57 ` Ian Pratt
2005-02-25 11:43 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-25 11:55 ` kernel 2.6.8-24.11-smp errors Marcel Smeets
2005-02-25 12:07 arch/xen is a bad idea Ian Pratt
2005-02-25 15:01 ` Andi Kleen
2005-02-25 22:37 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-26 20:41 Ian Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1103223432.21823.20.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome