On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 03:35:06PM +0200, Christian Limpach wrote:
> Quoting Ignatios Souvatzis <ignatios%cs.uni-bonn.de@localhost>:
>
> > from the FAQ:
> >
> > "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
> > tricky to handle."
> >
> > Shouldn't NetBSD/XEN be called something like NetBSD/XEN86, so that
> > e.g. a future XENamd64 would fit into the naming scheme?
>
> 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 processor
> 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
Attachment:
pgpqCUiDqjhi2.pgp
Description: PGP signature