Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH v7 08/11] packed virtqueues: more efficient virtqueue layout
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:00:07 +0100 Paolo Bonzini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On 05/02/2018 17:57, Halil Pasic wrote: > >> This is certainly not how we did it for v1.0, and not how > >> oasis process works generally. Implementations are required > >> to move to an oasis standard change. We are working on > >> a committee standard deliverables. > >> > >> I don't yet plan to work on an implementation yet: it's a bit of a > >> chicked and egg problem. People are reluctant to work on what's not in > >> the spec. We can always make changes as long as there are no > >> implementations. > >> > > 'We can always make changes as long as there are no implementations' > > comes very surprising to me. I believed, once a committee specification > > is released the requirements for changes are given, and don't depend > > on known implementations. > > > > Does this imply that one should be reluctant about implementing > > a virtio specification that still has no implementation (because it ain't > > stable, and may change, because there is no implementation yet)? > > I agree that this doesn't seem optimal. This is a much bigger change > than anything between virtio 0.9 and in virtio 1.0, because it affects > the data path directly. Nod. It looks in pretty good shape to me, once we fixed up the things I noticed during this round, but I still feel a bit uncomfortable without a prototype for non-pci. One issue for me is that all work has been done with pci as the transport, and with a view as to what could be helpful for implementers of pci cards. There's nothing inherently bad in that, but it does introduce a chance that other transports may run into problems when they try to implement it. Not an insurmountable problem, but something that should be kept in mind.