[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH RFC v7 6/8] ccw: disallow ADMIN_VQ

2022-09-01 Thread Halil Pasic
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:50:21 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > You seem to say that all the normative statements may be classified > > into two categories: > > C1) the other side does not rely on this requirement > > C2) the other side does rely on this requirement > > > > The requirements

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH RFC v7 6/8] ccw: disallow ADMIN_VQ

2022-08-31 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 04:33:49PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 05:35:53 -0400 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > > > Like here: > > > > +Driver MUST NOT set bit VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ (bit 41) in > > > > +DriverFeatures even if offered by the device. > > > > >

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH RFC v7 6/8] ccw: disallow ADMIN_VQ

2022-08-31 Thread Halil Pasic
On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 05:35:53 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > Like here: > > >+Driver MUST NOT set bit VIRTIO_F_ADMIN_VQ (bit 41) in > > >+DriverFeatures even if offered by the device. > > > > > > This makes sure that drivers do not make an assumption that > > > devices do not