Is there a good reason not to define XENU in terms of the XEN0 kernel 
config? Comparing the two configs, how about the following? (I understand 
that this may leave in all the pci drivers... some change for config(8) to 
do that properly may be needed).

The reason to do something like this would be to reduce maintenance costs 
and avoid errors (and defining XEN0 in terms of a GENERIC kernel would be 
nice, too, in turn).

Open questions:
  * is options WSDISPLAY_SCROLLSUPPORT left out in XENU on purpose, or was
     XENU just not updated (see "avoid errors")
  * should wd*, sd*, cd* at hypervisor be enabled?
  * A comment on what 'xenevt' is would be nice in XEN0


  - Hubert
    Department Against Redundancy Department


#	$NetBSD$
#
# XENU kernel, defined in terms of XEN0
#
include "arch/i386/conf/XEN0"

no options 	DOM0OPS
no options 	WSDISPLAY_SCROLLSUPPORT		# is that on purpose?

xennet* 	at hypervisor?		# Xen virtual network interface

no pci*		at hypervisor? bus ?	# Prevent access to PCI bus

xbd*		at hypervisor?		# Xen virtual block device
#wd*		at hypervisor?		# Xen vbd (wd identity)		# rm?
#sd*		at hypervisor?		# Xen vbd (sd identity)		# rm?
#cd*		at hypervisor?		# Xen vbd (cd identity)		# rm?

no pseudo-device	xenevt