Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:40:02 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: A proposal - binary |
| |
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/
| |