Re: [virtio-comment] TAB Comments on Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) Version 1.0

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> writes:
> > TAB-556	Conformance targets
> > 
> > 	After reading 2.2.1 Legacy Interface, again, I have a suggestion
> > 	for conformance targets in section 9 (subject to my getting this
> > 	wrong): 1. Non-Transitional Device - enumerate which sections of
> > 	normative text I MUST conform to in order to have a
> > 	Non-Transitional Device. 2. Non-Transitional Driver - enumerate
> > 	which sections of normative text I MUST conform to in order to
> > 	have a Non-Transitional Driver. 3. #1 plus ?? = Transitional
> > 	Device. 4. #2 plus ?? = Transitional Driver with the
> > 	sub-numbering under 1 - 4 specifying the details of
> > 	conformance. Yes?
> 
> I originally wanted to make all the legacy sections non-normative, and
> thus avoid any MUSTs in there.  It's a bit weird, becuase legacy systems
> our outside the scope of the current standard, but we really do want to
> be kind for people in transition.
> 
> I think Michael had objections to this, though.  So here's my
> compromise:

I thought about this some more.
This will basically mean that 1.0 co-exists with 0.9
and we'll have to maintain 0.9 and fix bugs there :(

It isn't a lot of work to make it normative, why not
do it and make 1.0 supercede 0.9 completely?


We have an optional module dealing with legacy devices
but is this so unusual?

-- 
MST