OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] allocating device IDs without a vote

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:16:45PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:

Let's clarify whether it is acceptable to keep the device without a spec

I am starting to get the feeling people would like to define one-off
VIRTIO devices that are unlikely to be implemented elsewhere.

As VIRTIO expands we may find it acceptable to allow these use cases,
but expectations should be clear:
1. VIRTIO spec features won't be added for out-of-tree devices. The user
   needs to be in the spec so that the design can be reviewed.
2. Out-of-tree devices that violate the VIRTIO device model may cease to
   work or be impossible to implement as the VIRTIO spec evolves.

> Perhaps there needs to be some kind of annotation? If you reserve an ID
> via the quick mechanism, it gets a "reserved until YYYY-MM-DD", and
> that tag gets removed when a proper spec is merged? For
> "in-the-wild-do-not-reuse" IDs, we'd still require a vote, as the
> default should be to have a proper spec if you want something outside
> of the private namespace.

I'm not sure revoking an ID is realistic in the case where the owner
refuses to upstream a spec but is shipping devices. The upstream device
that reused the ID will suffer when collisions occur.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]