From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8C7C433EF for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 396F06115B for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:14:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 396F06115B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:48854 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mkO90-0001yK-3o for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:14:22 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56028) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mkO7k-0000Op-5i; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:13:04 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:2878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mkO7g-0003c9-9r; Tue, 09 Nov 2021 05:13:02 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A97ljsr016143; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:56 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=QJ4UxW0sCSYDcI/c4et0fOdu5Y1vbcusXB0RbNdnV4w=; b=ttnql8YCa3QJQDUixs7W+vinyK//NBmNRU4E0Fg4wgoKDXo68bnmHL/hGyP84FrtzY37 jZjpvXRdYXiMxxmrmGx2BU/VH+4mEMtFPx4/BmnQvPe+3KSqY8uNGkeWCmmi2VT+9KKm SPhz8XqB8u7fyZMH8rTmpEGswf2z0RKNlMnRmFlUpOdwCsfWrs2AtlPvtq1pSyoHWS4e UxMxMjFaDWwnGLOnuW+FkwWukB+K7UXLw3HuTNQRF0Q0BrbCXGEuA+tclHGQhyWw8iT8 BxgykY65mDtXq2ZlVRWf82N3WIbpajHsDpAZYSK1J6K2c1hec69yhy8BUo91QlS7dM9B eg== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7mwqk22q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 10:12:56 +0000 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1A991AV1025948; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:56 GMT Received: from ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (6c.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7mwqk228-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 10:12:55 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A9A3d3q031135; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:54 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma05fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3c5hb9ch4y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 10:12:54 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1A9ACpxr64160066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:51 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04C1A4054; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB3CA405F; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e979b1cc-23ba-11b2-a85c-dfd230f6cf82 (unknown [9.171.88.172]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:12:50 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 11:12:48 +0100 From: Halil Pasic To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] virtio: early detect 'modern' virtio Message-ID: <20211109111248.0e4a0886.pasic@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20211105034053-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20211028220017.930806-1-pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20211105034053-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: kS4t5R0_1HK4bJayKmgp59ti1v9lxRo- X-Proofpoint-GUID: VvVz9Szv-spGCq9VdOjbMjat3xRw6Upa X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-09_03,2021-11-08_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=991 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111090057 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.158.5; envelope-from=pasic@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Thomas Huth , David Hildenbrand , Cornelia Huck , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Halil Pasic , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 03:42:33 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > This series was only lightly tested. > > I think it's a good enough approach, and we are getting close > to release. For vhost - a new callback just for that? Would be ok. > Or just invoke set features - if this works. As of today I'm back from vacation. I intend to handle this problem/series with priority. Regards, Halil