Re: A proposal - binary

[David Lang]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/