On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:16:34PM +0100, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 
> 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).

I don't like much nested includes like this. It makes it much harder to
know what is or is not in a config.

> 
> 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).

I think what we want it more kernel config fragments (e.g. GENERIC.pci,
GENERIC.fs, GENERIC.network and so on) to be inclued in real config files,
not one config file including one other.

If we go this way I think it would be better to have XEN0 include XENU and not
the opposite. There would be less things to remove.

> 
> Open questions:
>  * is options WSDISPLAY_SCROLLSUPPORT left out in XENU on purpose, or was
>     XENU just not updated (see "avoid errors")

The error is to have WSDISPLAY_* options in XENU. There's no wscons in XenU.

>  * should wd*, sd*, cd* at hypervisor be enabled?

No. This doesn't work and should be removed.

>  * A comment on what 'xenevt' is would be nice in XEN0

"required for xentools20" ? :)

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--