[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- To: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:06:27 -0800
- Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pratap Subrahmanyam <pratap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, Joshua LeVasseur <jtl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Hecht <dhecht@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Jack Lo <jlo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Arai <arai@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:07:53 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
* Zachary Amsden (zach@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> No, you don't need to dream up all the possible interface bits ahead of
> time. With a la carte interfaces, you can take what you need now, and
> add features later. You don't need an ABI for features. You need it
> for compatibility. You will need to update the hypervisor ABI. And you
> can't force people to upgrade their kernels.
How do you support an interface that's not already a part of the ABI
w/out changing the kernel?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
