Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> I'm worried about the ramp up to 2.6.25 causing confusion among users >> as before that things will break left and right, if we don't provide >> a tighter check. >> > > Well, using the PCI revision ID isn't a bad idea. It wouldn't have > helped this last problem because that was an ABI break in the network > driver and we really can't indicate a ABI break in the PCI driver for > any possibly virtio device.
Why not? we have one pci device per virtio device, and in the same way the pci id is device-specific, the revision id can be device specific as well. We just need a virtio revision field, and a pci-virtio binding for that field. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
