On Thu, 2025-09-18 at 11:09 -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Most notably this reverts a virtio console > change since we made it without considering compatibility > sufficiently.
It seems that we are not in agreement about whether it should be reverted or not. I think it should depend on whether the virtio spec maintainers are willing to change it to agree with the Linux implementation. I was under the impression that they aren't. I will quote some conversation from the patch thread. Maximilian Immanuel Brandtner wrote: > On a related note, during the initial discussion of this changing the > virtio spec was proposed as well (as can be read from the commit mgs), > however at the time on the viritio mailing list people were resistent > to the idea of changing the virtio spec to conform to the kernel > implementation. > I don't really care if this discrepancy is fixed one way or the other, > but it should most definitely be fixed. I wrote: > I'm of the same opinion, but if it is fixed on the kernel side, then > (assuming no device implementation with the wrong order exists) I think > maybe the fix should be backported to all widely used kernels. It seems > that the patch hasn't been backported to the longterm kernels [1], > which I think Debian kernels are based on. > > [1]: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/log/drivers/char/virtio_console.c?h=v6.12.47 Maximilian Immanuel Brandtner wrote: > Then I guess the patch-set should be backported After that, I sent a backport request to stable@. Maybe I should have waited some more time before doing that. Anyway, I don't care which way this dilemma will be resolved, but the discussion is currently scattered among too many places and it's hard to determine what the consensus is. Best regards, Filip Hejsek
