[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH v7 01/11] content: move 1.0 queue format out to a separate section
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 12:10:20 +0100 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 02/06/2018 01:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 11:54:52PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 01/23/2018 01:01 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >>> +\section{Split Virtqueues}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Split Virtqueues} > >>> +The split virtqueue format is the original format used by legacy > >>> +virtio devices. > >> > >> All v1.0 devices and drivers are using split too not only legacy (aka pre v1.0). > > > > Yes but there's no versioning in virtio. IOW there is not need to > > introduce a concept of "1.0 device". Devices just either do or > > do not support the packed format. > > > > > I agree with what Connie proposed (drop 'used by legacy virtio devices'). > My point is that this legacy can lead to confusion. > > Regarding no versioning in virtio: I agree only partially. We have > the VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 feature bit and we have a version number in > the title. But I think, I understand what you mean. This non-egsistence > of versioning in virtio is probably trivial for anybody working on > virtio for years. But is it for a new hire who just got trough the spec? > > In the CIO transport we have an explicit mention of virtio 1.0 (explains > revision 1). I wonder if that is still appropriate. Shouldn't that just > be virtio 1? We can certainly do s/1.0/1/ in the ccw transport (mind doing a patch?) For the greater picture: As I see it, any implementation conforming to 1.1 is also conforming to 1.0. To conform to 1.1, it only needs the split layout. I think we can continue with that for any further iterations of 1.n (and keep VERSION_1 as it is now.) What we want to do with version 2.n (should that ever come up) is up for discussion (can an implementation conform to version 2 but not to version 1?). But I prefer to cross that bridge when we come to it.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]