Re: [Xen-merge] status

["Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

--On Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:41:44 -0700 Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> * Ian Pratt (m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>> Andrew responded to my message saying he thought I'd put forward good
>> points why the ROM approach is not the way to go, but I'm not sure what
>> the current 'community opinion' is?
>> 
>> Any ideas how best to proceed? Keep pushing the sub-arch approach, and
>> maybe have vmware add vmi hooks to that?
> 
> Yes, I think that's the best option.  Continue to move forward as we are.
> There's loads of cleanup before we ever get to VMI anyway.  It's nice to
> take one digestible chunk at a time.

I think it'd be good if we supported the cleanup part of their patches;
partly because I think they actually make the code more readable, and
partly to promote some sort of harmony that'll make it easier to come
to a consensus on the other abstractions we want ...

M.


_______________________________________________
Xen-merge mailing list
Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge