Re: A proposal - binary
From: David Lang
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 18:41:24 EST
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.
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/