From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] kvm-14 release Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:06:07 +1100 Message-ID: <1171933567.8218.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <45D98390.6060001@qumranet.com> <20070219131633.GF31525@redhat.com> <45D9A464.8040406@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: James Morris Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:37 -0500, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > >> Note that if you use the modules from Linux 2.6.20, you need to use > > >> kvm-12. You can use kvm-14 with Linux 2.6.20, provided you use the > > >> external module included in kvm-14. > > >> > > > > > > Is there back-compatability in the reverse direction ? ie, will the > > > new kmod from kvm-14 work with the older kvm-12 userspace ? > > > > > > > No. > > It's traditional for the mainline kernel to maintain backward > compatibility with existing userspace ABIs (e.g. syscalls). Stable ABIs are hard, and this is CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL after all. I don't think KVM needs ABI stability until CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is removed (of course, sooner is always nice if it doesn't create problems). Rusty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV