WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] compatibility

To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] compatibility
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:31:53 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:32:31 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <440C5424.76F0.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <440C5424.76F0.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 6 Mar 2006, at 14:24, Jan Beulich wrote:

It had been my understanding that the intention after the 3.0.0 release was to maintain binary compatibility so that older kernels would always be able to run on newer hypervisors. There now again (there was at least one other case) was a checkin that broke this (c/s 9120), and I wonder whether I am mistaken with the above assumption.

Thanks, Jan

We make that guarantee for unprivileged domUs (not dom0, nor domains with physical device access).

 -- Keir


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>