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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

virtio-dev message

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

Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH 13/14] conformance: document two types of devices

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> document that there are two conformance levels

This needs merging with my rewritten conformance text, since I reworked
it all.  The introductory part looks good, it's the specific
requirements which are now separated into driver & device, then per
transport, then per-type.

The most work was separating all the SHALL and MUST requirements into
their own subsections, for easy reference.  Perhaps that'll be easier
for the legacy sections since there's less explanation.

  Perhaps we
don't need to go that far, or we can clean them up later.

Then I
referred to device requirements (core requirements + one of the
transport requirements + one of the device requirements), and similar
for driver requirements.

> ---
>  conformance.tex | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex
> index 0e8b321..1577bdb 100644
> --- a/conformance.tex
> +++ b/conformance.tex
> @@ -3,6 +3,58 @@
>  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>  \chapter{Conformance}
> -An implementation conforms to this specification if it satisfies
> -all of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements defined within
> -this specification.
> +A conformant implementation MUST be either transitional or
> +non-transitional, see \ref{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> +Device / Feature Bits / Legacy Interface: A Note on transitions
> +from earlier drafts}.
> +
> +A non-transitional implementation conforms to this specification
> +if it satisfies all of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements
> +defined within this specification.
> +
> +An implementation MAY choose to implement OPTIONAL support for the
> +legacy interface, including support for legacy drivers
> +or devices, by additionally conforming to all of the MUST or
> +REQUIRED level requirements for the legacy interface
> +for the transitional devices and drivers.

BTW, I think we should get rid of REQUIRED and OPTIONAL in the few
places we use them, sticking with MUST and MAY.  But that's an easy
patch later.


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