On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:32:20 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:39:30AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > So, what I'd propose is: > > - virtio-*-pci-standard: compliant with the virtio standard 1.0 or > > later; no legacy fallback > > - virtio-*-pci-transitional: compliant with the virtio standard 1.0 or > > later; fallback to legacy included, as specified by the standard > > (- virtio-*-pci-legacy: legacy devices, should we need that for compat > > reasons) > > > > We could also use '-virtio-1' instead of '-standard', if we do a major > > break with a 2.x standard (I don't see it yet). But having a new type > > for 1.1 sounds wrong. > > That's true: adding a new type for 1.1 is probably going to be > wrong. > > But how can I make any promises about the existing device type > being compatible with 1.1 (or 1.2, 1.3...), if the 1.1 (or 1.2, > 1.3...) specification wasn't released yet? I think the *goal* is to keep them compatible. We'll probably want to switch to virtio-2 should we want to do an explicit break in the future. > > Maybe using "-virtio-1" would be a good way to be clear we're > talking about virtio-1.x without making any promises about 1.1, > 1.2, 1.3, etc. It would fit the way this is supposed to work, yes.
