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. > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb
