[src/trunk]: src/doc Add another issue that I just remembered, from the time ...

[pgoyette <pgoyette%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

details:   https://anonhg.NetBSD.org/src/rev/b02dc3a4bca4
branches:  trunk
changeset: 465990:b02dc3a4bca4
user:      pgoyette <pgoyette%NetBSD.org@localhost>
date:      Sun Dec 08 15:51:49 2019 +0000

description:
Add another issue that I just remembered, from the time working on the
[pgoyette-compat] branch, regarding inability to get some XEN-related
modules to build.

diffstat:

 doc/TODO.modules |  10 +++++++++-
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diffs (21 lines):

diff -r 711eb3979fbf -r b02dc3a4bca4 doc/TODO.modules
--- a/doc/TODO.modules  Sun Dec 08 15:09:33 2019 +0000
+++ b/doc/TODO.modules  Sun Dec 08 15:51:49 2019 +0000
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* $NetBSD: TODO.modules,v 1.20 2019/09/29 00:57:11 pgoyette Exp $ */
+/* $NetBSD: TODO.modules,v 1.21 2019/12/08 15:51:49 pgoyette Exp $ */
 
 Some notes on the limitations of our current (as of 7.99.35) module
 subsystem.  This list was triggered by an Email exchange between
@@ -228,3 +228,11 @@
     have any way to identify which module is needed for which image (ie,
     we can't determine that an image needs compat_linux vs some other
     module).
+
+24. Details are no longer remembered, but there are some issues with
+    building xen-variant modules (on amd4, and likely i386).  In some
+    cases, wrong headers are included (because a XEN-related #define
+    is missing), but even if you add the definition some headers get
+    included in the wrong order.  On particular fallout from this is
+    the inability to have a compat version of x86_64 cpu-microcode
+    module.