Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161551AbWHDWnk (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:43:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161554AbWHDWnj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:43:39 -0400 Received: from warden-p.diginsite.com ([208.29.163.248]:30961 "HELO warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161552AbWHDWni (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:43:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:40:02 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang.diginsite.com To: Jeff Dike cc: Antonio Vargas , Rusty Russell , Andrew Morton , jeremy@xensource.com, greg@kroah.com, zach@vmware.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, jlo@vmware.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, simon@xensource.com, ian.pratt@xensource.com, jeremy@goop.org Subject: Re: A proposal - binary In-Reply-To: <20060804214643.GA6407@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> Message-ID: References: <44D2B678.6060400@xensource.com> <20060803211850.3a01d0cc.akpm@osdl.org> <1154667875.11382.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060803225357.e9ab5de1.akpm@osdl.org> <1154675100.11382.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <69304d110608041146t44077033j9a10ae6aee19a16d@mail.gmail.com> <20060804194549.GA5897@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> <20060804214643.GA6407@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1540 Lines: 39 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0700, David Lang wrote: >>> Why might you have to do that? >> >> take this with a grain of salt, I'm not saying the particular versions I'm >> listing would require this >> >> if your new guest kernel wants to use some new feature (SKAS3, time >> virtualization, etc) but the older host kernel didn't support some system >> call nessasary to implement it, you may need to upgrade the host kernel to >> one that provides the new features. > > OK, yeah. > > Just making sure you weren't thinking that the UML and host versions > were tied together (although a modern distro won't boot on a 2.6 UML > on a 2.4 host because UML's TLS needs TLS support on the host...). this is exactly the type of thing that I think is acceptable. this is a case of a new client needing a new host. if you have a server running a bunch of 2.4 UMLs on a 2.4 host and want to add a 2.6 UML you can do it becouse you can shift to a buch of 2.4 UMLs (plus one 2.6 UML) running on a 2.6 host. what I would be bothered by was if you weren't able to run a 2.4 UML on a 2.6 host becouse you have locked out the upgrade path Everyone needs to remember that this sort of thing does happen, Xen2 clients cannot run on a Xen3 host. David Lang - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/