 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] compatibility
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] compatibility |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:24:20 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:24:49 +0000 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| 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> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
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 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Xen Guest Kexec, Gerd Hoffmann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] compatibility, Keir Fraser |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] VMX status report changset 9137:64f11b0e2e7d, Shi, Alex |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] compatibility, Keir Fraser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
