--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Christian Limpach wrote:
> Quoting Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de>:
>=20
> > from the FAQ:
> >=20
> > "Xen currently runs on the x86 architecture, but could in principle be
> > ported to others.In fact, it would have been rather easier to write
> > Xen for pretty much any other architecture as x86 is particularly=20
> > tricky to handle."
> >=20
> > Shouldn't NetBSD/XEN be called something like NetBSD/XEN86, so that
> > e.g. a future XENamd64 would fit into the naming scheme?
>=20
> I guess it depends on how important the processor architecture is.  Of
> course at the binary level it's quite significant but at the source code
> level it shouldn't be, I think of it more like supporting different types
> of buses.  Looking at the list of ports, it doesn't seem like the process=
or
> architecture is the primary gate for calling something a new port but the
> OS-machine interface (i.e. bios, boot method, ...).  And the OS-machine
> interface should the same for Xen whether it runs on i386 or amd64.

maybe source, but surely not binary? think different "long" sizes?
	-is

--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQEVAgUBQHR18jCn4om+4LhpAQGD7Qf/QwiOuTozUCGry+R75vl/ITYEVqQKVYZf
hbwl5PD3hpcNJEvEYAWe8GYc/7Ao9guHZUtmLiDf1BIb0dAzYxfa3toAhStk0XAq
VRdkgYr/J0lkzEssB/a5/kpgRb5+o9UvqBcc14mKR44orwztONa1Os2Bw7EAf/BN
DEIrbgf4rvnjDeq9WOfiEzu405hw/2tXAVOaqB3565nyUNdbOmb/haW6zYnVx4aY
DFHBBE0znkhLuKjSWKlLDlP0tv2TLtZUIjG99IlFZ8ZMeWlArWc2JBzm7jX9XwIx
wtyuzW0V8rTMJ9A+7hLkyZ/0esQhDq9PAJIZ7Gf1dZmLRprN1FWCNQ==
=Dqat
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk--