RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Xin LI-5
Hi,

Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
think the latter is a lot cleaner (and libpthread, etc. already has
their arch/[arch] directory on the other hand).

Cheers,
--
Xin LI <[hidden email]> http://www.delphij.net

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Daniel Eischen
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Xin LI wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
> think the latter is a lot cleaner (and libpthread, etc. already has
> their arch/[arch] directory on the other hand).

FreeBSD started out as 386 only.  It probably just wasn't envisioned
that we'd have more than just one or two archs.

I think this issue has been brought up in the past, and if it causes
a lot of pain or repo-bloat, they'll probably be some resistance.

--
DE

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Garrett Wollman
In reply to this post by Xin LI-5
Xin Li writes:

>Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
>think the latter is a lot cleaner

"I think it's cleaner" is not good enough.  What *technical* reason
can you come up with to make such a change?  Keep in mind that we
decided not to do this several years ago, when there were only three
platforms to support.  Now there are eight, with innumerably more
people and scripts used to the current layout.

-GAWollman

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Warner Losh
In reply to this post by Xin LI-5
In message: <[hidden email]>
            Xin LI <[hidden email]> writes:
: Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
: think the latter is a lot cleaner (and libpthread, etc. already has
: their arch/[arch] directory on the other hand).

This discussion is 10 years too late.  There would be a huge amount of
repo-churn that would happen.  Also, the inevitible bikeshed happens
about totally reorganizing the kernel, which inevitably ends
inconclusively.

I'd personally love to see it, but it would be extremely disruptive.

Warner
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Scott Long-2
M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <[hidden email]>
>             Xin LI <[hidden email]> writes:
> : Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
> : think the latter is a lot cleaner (and libpthread, etc. already has
> : their arch/[arch] directory on the other hand).
>
> This discussion is 10 years too late.  There would be a huge amount of
> repo-churn that would happen.  Also, the inevitible bikeshed happens
> about totally reorganizing the kernel, which inevitably ends
> inconclusively.
>
> I'd personally love to see it, but it would be extremely disruptive.
>
> Warner

Well, it should have been done with alpha was added in 1998, so it's
only 7 years too late =-)  If we were to ever restart the repo like we
did with ncvs for FreeBSD 2.0, it could be done.  Otherwise, it is
too much pain and churn.

Scott
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Xin LI-5
On 11/13/05, Scott Long <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> Well, it should have been done with alpha was added in 1998, so it's
> only 7 years too late =-)  If we were to ever restart the repo like we
> did with ncvs for FreeBSD 2.0, it could be done.  Otherwise, it is


Thanks for the explaination.

BTW. Shall having arch/foo for new libraries be considered preferred,
if they have MD code?

Cheers,
--
Xin LI <[hidden email]> http://www.delphij.net

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Takahashi Yoshihiro
In reply to this post by Scott Long-2
In article <[hidden email]>
Scott Long <[hidden email]> writes:

> > This discussion is 10 years too late.  There would be a huge amount of
> > repo-churn that would happen.  Also, the inevitible bikeshed happens
> > about totally reorganizing the kernel, which inevitably ends
> > inconclusively.
> >
> > I'd personally love to see it, but it would be extremely disruptive.
> >
> > Warner
>
> Well, it should have been done with alpha was added in 1998, so it's
> only 7 years too late =-)

pc98 was added in 1996 :)

---
TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Bruce Evans
In reply to this post by Daniel Eischen
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote:

>> Is there any reason that we have sys/i386 and not sys/arch/i386?  I
>> think the latter is a lot cleaner (and libpthread, etc. already has
>> their arch/[arch] directory on the other hand).

I think the former is a lot cleaner.

> FreeBSD started out as 386 only.  It probably just wasn't envisioned
> that we'd have more than just one or two archs.

FreeBSD-1 started with Net/2 which has numerous arches.  I'm not sure
exactly what was in Net/2, but in 4.3-reno /sys is:

GENERIC.alltahoe/ machine@ tahoedist/
GENERIC.allvax/ mdec/ tahoeif/
cassette/ net/ tahoemath/
conf/ netimp/ tahoestand/
consolerl/ netinet/ tahoevba/
floppy/ netiso/ ufs/
hp300/ netns/ vax/
hpdev/ netrmp/ vaxbi/
hpstand/ nfs/ vaxdist/
hpux/ stand/ vaxif/
i386/ sys/ vaxmba/
kdb/ tahoe/ vaxstand/
kern/ tahoealign/ vaxuba/

More than half the directories here are arch-related, but there seem
to be only 3 arches with full support: hp300, tahoe and vax.  The
directory tree was even flatter, with no important subdirs.  The
hp300 directory was amazingly simple and clean:

DOC/ cons.h kgdb_stub.c oc_cksum.s trap.c
Locore.c cpu.h locore.s pcb.h trap.h
TODO dkbad.c machdep.c psl.h ufs_machdep.c
autoconf.c endian.h machlimits.h pte.h vectors.s
clock.c float.h machparam.h reg.h vm_machdep.c
clockioctl.h frame.h machtypes.h swapgeneric.c vmparam.h
clockreg.h genassym.c mem.c symbols.sort
conf.c in_cksum.c mtpr.h sys_machdep.c
cons.c isr.h ns_cksum.c tags

FreeBSD-2 started with 4.4BSD which has numerous arches:

compile/ isofs/ net/ nfs/ sys/
conf/ kern/ netccitt/ pmax/ tahoe/
dev/ libkern/ netinet/ scripts/ tests/
hp/ luna68k/ netiso/ sparc/ ufs/
hp300/ mips@ netns/ stand/ vax/
i386/ miscfs/ news3400/ stand.att/ vm/

Net/2 is actually more like this than 4.3-reno.  Here there are 8
supported arches: hp300, i386, luna68k news3400, pmax, sparc, tahoe
and vax.  I think only the older arches are fully supported here.
FreeBSD didn't import most of this, including for i386's -- it got
working i386 support from 386BSD via FreeBSD-1.

> I think this issue has been brought up in the past, and if it causes
> a lot of pain or repo-bloat, they'll probably be some resistance.

It would only cause 100 times as much pain and repo-bloat as when it was
brought up ~10 years ago.

Bruce
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: Why not move kernel MD code to sys/arch/?

Peter Wemm-2
In reply to this post by Xin LI-5
On Monday 14 November 2005 12:47 am, Xin LI wrote:

> On 11/13/05, Scott Long <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Well, it should have been done with alpha was added in 1998, so
> > it's only 7 years too late =-)  If we were to ever restart the repo
> > like we did with ncvs for FreeBSD 2.0, it could be done.
> > Otherwise, it is
>
> Thanks for the explaination.
>
> BTW. Shall having arch/foo for new libraries be considered preferred,
> if they have MD code?

I personally hate it.  libpthread etc drive me crazy because they use
this.
--
Peter Wemm - [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"