Re: [Xen-merge] xen-merge mailing list

[Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>]

* Ian Pratt (m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>  
> > > Is it worth us setting up one or more Linux 2.6 mercurial tress on 
> > > xenbits that we can use to show each other what we're 
> > doing? Patches 
> > > for this sort of thing aren't easy to read.
> > 
> > This worries me.  Patches that are not easy to read are going 
> > to be horribly hard to merge into xen-unstable...
> 
> I imagine the patches we submit will consist of a sequence that tidy up
> i386 and x86_64 and create all the hooks we need, and then a final patch
> that actually adds the Xen support. 
>  
> The way I would propose going about doing this is to create a Linux hg
> tree that has all the re-arrangements in it with xen as a sub-arch, and
> then generate a diff that we chop up and arrange into the separate
> patches.

The chop up and diff part isn't looking too horrible.  There will be some
headaches if it takes too long and there's lots of remerging to keep up.

> The first part of the work is going to be rearranging our sparse tree to
> split arch/xen out in to drivers/xen/core and arch/{i386/x86_64}/xen.
> Patches for this step would be very messy (mostly file renames) and
> aren't worth maintaining as patches, hence the Linux hg tree. 

Yeah, in fact, I think it can be copies during interim so both sides
can continue to build.

thanks,
-chris

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