RE: [Xen-devel] why in the ustable developement tree are scsi an

To:	"Ralph Blach" <chipper@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel List" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [Xen-devel] why in the ustable developement tree are scsi and ethernet device driver build in
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:26:03 +0100
Delivery-date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:24:32 +0000
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcWUcMto/Jh/KN3JSxmjM/C3mgkbQwAG5uIw
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] why in the ustable developement tree are scsi and ethernet device driver build in

 > Why in unstable development tree are are all the device 
> drivers build in to the kernel? I had a problem with two 
> ethenets on the same IRQ not working.  This was fixed by 
> making them modules, and they now the two ethernets  work on 
> the same irq
> 
> Should we be developing with all the drivers as modules, 
> using an initrd, so that we can keep the kernel size down?

Use the -xen config if you want everything as modules. -xen0/-xenU is
more convenient for developers.

Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] why in the ustable developement tree are scsi and ethern