Avi Kivity wrote: > 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.
I hadn't thought of that, but that's clever :-) If we need to bump it, we can add a field to virtio_init_pci() to indicate ABI version. I don't think it's necessary to add that until we need to use it though. Regards, Anthony Liguori ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
