On Tue, 7 May 2019 01:39:13 -0400 Yan Zhao <yan.y.z...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:29:08PM +0800, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > If I followed the discussion correctly, I think you plan to drop this > > format, don't you? I'd be happy if a vendor driver can use a simple > > number without any prefixes if it so chooses. > > > > I also like the idea of renaming this "migration_version" so that it is > > clear we're dealing with versioning of the migration capability (and > > not a version of the device or so). > hi Cornelia, > sorry I just saw this mail after sending v2 of this patch set... > yes, I dropped the common part and vendor driver now can define whatever it > wishes to identify a device version. Ok, I'll look at v2. > However, I don't agree to rename it to "migration_version", as it still may > bring some kind of confusing with the migration version a vendor driver is > using, e.g. vendor driver changes migration code and increases that migration > version. > In fact, what info we want to get from this attribute is whether this mdev > device is compatible with another mdev device, which is tied to device, and > not > necessarily bound to migration. > > do you think so? I'm not 100% convinced; but we can continue the discussion on v2. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
