> > linux/include/xen/ - contains all xen includes that
> > are common (not archdep)
> > linux/include/asm-*/xen/ - contains all xen includes
> > required for a specific architecture[1]
>
> except s/xen/mach-xen/
>
> > linux/arch/*/xen/ - contains xen code that is archdep
>
> and s/xen/mach-xen/
Doesn't mach-xen imply (to a Linux kernel developer) that
xen is disjoint with and cannot co-exist with the other
mach-*? Whereas leaving off the mach- implies that xen
more of a configurable option that may apply to multiple
mach- types? (Or perhaps I am just thinking of "machvec"
on ia64?)
I guess I don't care whether there is a mach- prefix or
not but want to ensure Linux conventions are kept where
possible.
 
> Also, since this means those headers are a snapshot, binary 
> compatibility
> needs to be (more) carefully considered.
Good point. Perhaps we should specify VERSION macros like
Linux has (for both Linux and gcc)?
Dan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel