From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gCoCr-0002LF-OM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:58:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gCoCn-0002rO-Rm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:57:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gCoCj-0002i5-LO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:57:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:57:25 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20181017155725.GD31060@habkost.net> References: <20181013025435.25785-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20181014173258-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20181015181404.GQ31060@habkost.net> <20181016170236.GJ7995@redhat.com> <048ea4797a31e3a584c36453e6cad10403462e55.camel@redhat.com> <20181017150137.GX31060@habkost.net> <20181017110249-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181017110249-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Provide version-specific variants of virtio PCI devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Andrea Bolognani , Laine Stump , Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gonglei , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Cleber Rosa , Markus Armbruster , Caio Carrara , Gerd Hoffmann , Fabian Deutsch On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:06:31AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:01:37PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: [...] > > I'm considering doing this in v2: > > > > * Remove the -0.9 device type, because nobody seems to need it > > * Add two device types: > > * virtio-1-blk-pci-non-transitional > > * virtio-1-blk-pci-transitional > > > > This way, we: > > * Include only the major version of the spec (so > > we don't require new device types for virtio 1.1, 1.2, etc), > > * Use terms that come from the Virtio spec itself, to avoid > > ambiguity. > > I'd say just drop "1" completely then. E.g. transitional and legacy > have same ID's, differences are internal and not interesting to users. > If spec comes up with a new type of device it will come up with a new > term for it, I am sure. Sounds good to me. I'll do that in v2. -- Eduardo