* Zachary Amsden ([email protected]) 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? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Joshua LeVasseur <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- References:
- [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- From: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
- [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- Prev by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6.16 PATCH] some tail whitespace clean under subdirectory kernel
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
- Index(es):