From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 22 18:30:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6BC16A417 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:30:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAF313C4A6 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:30:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so1473880waf for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Ip4R39Hkjw2heKjTKnlsfuCqIJsJkEy6mg8pB6rT99s=; b=aBiXChlJDngq0XiJQxJq+shBosZ55TsZA3NUcn9LjlLBk+RawbK80+UBaQSLahB+iFN3Uvv10L7SpbgLz4dfTrWQOfs4kfnI1nILwh01ThVh7piH3A+1VOj2w5UaMcwhQmP5Bj+8ARzBbJDiWMIvDIiG949EIBx0EYJfHAazKRM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kSGNH8T4Lykh2mvcvblGEMubaY6tx09d2Tb+cqihuEIBM17F7cQrbIvWUSCGisutAx8T3oynI9m8p9/dCRmeDaT8lxa/Q8+DM7+ywARH+M9QMJF7+T4+tjuTPqXAGnlGcaBgkssnyrbz8gcSW35TqPrTt9GMtwQX7yLMLgYIEic= Received: by 10.114.109.1 with SMTP id h1mr5817946wac.1193077842098; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.13.15 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:30:42 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=" In-Reply-To: <86lk9ve5bx.fsf@ds4.des.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <86lk9ve5bx.fsf@ds4.des.no> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should Xen be a sub-arch or a build option? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:30:47 -0000 > I'd say a kernel option would be the best choice; code that isn't > relevant for Xen but is otherwise compiled by default can be bracketed > with #ifndef XEN. > The typical response is sub-arch - and that is what I did in my perforce branch, but I'd like to explore the build option approach as sub-arch requires a large amount of header duplication or creating headers that are empty except for including the native headers. What if, rather than putting ifndef XEN in 10 or 15 files, I instead added "native" to options.i386 and marked all those files as "native" in files.i386 and then put "native" in DEFAULTS. That would allow me to simply add "nooption native" in a XEN kernel config and disable their compilation without touching the files themselves. -Kip