On 20.07.20 11:03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:09:57AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 07.07.20 12:54, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> As discussed in "virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage", it seems like >>> a good idea to make sure that any new virtio device (which does not >>> support legacy virtio) is indeed a non-transitional device, just to >>> catch accidental misconfigurations. We can easily compile a list >>> of virtio devices with legacy support and have transports verify >>> in their plugged callbacks that legacy support is off for any device >>> not in that list. >>> >>> Most new virtio devices force non-transitional already, so nothing >>> changes for them. vhost-user-fs-pci even does not allow to configure >>> a non-transitional device, so it is fine as well. >>> >>> One problematic device, however, is virtio-iommu-pci. It currently >>> offers both the transitional and the non-transitional variety of the >>> device, and does not force anything. I'm unsure whether we should >>> consider transitional virtio-iommu unsupported, or if we should add >>> some compat handling. (The support for legacy or not generally may >>> change based upon the bus, IIUC, so I'm unsure how to come up with >>> something generic.) >>> >>> Cornelia Huck (2): >>> virtio: list legacy-capable devices >>> virtio: verify that legacy support is not accidentally on >> >> I'd squash both patches. Looking at patch #1, I wonder why we don't >> store that information along with the device implementation? What was >> the motivation to define this information separately? > > Because people seem to cut and paste code, so when one > enables it in an old device, it gets pasted into a new one. > With a list in a central place, it's easier to figure out > what's going on.
Makes sense, I suggest adding that to the patch description. Both patches look sane to me (- squashing them). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb