On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 16:21:31 +0100 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07 2022, Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:41:58 +0100 > > Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> OTOH, the decision to make it mandatory is certainly sound, and covered > >> by the spec. As the driver must be prepared for the device failing to > >> accept FEATURES_OK, we can make it mandatory here -- we should just not > >> say that it is considered mandatory from a spec standpoint. The spec > >> allows to make it mandatory, and we make it mandatory in our > >> implementation. > > > > Right. Was never my intention to say that it is considered mandatory > > by the spec. I guess the spec considers it less optional than the > > run of the mill features. > > > > Should I change the first sentence to something like "Unlike most virtio > > features ACCESS_PATFORM is considered mandatory by QEMU, i.e. the driver > > must accept it if offered by the device." > > If you do s/PATFORM/PLATFORM/ :), yes. That's a much shorter way of > expressing what I had been trying to argue in my reply :) > Will do! I'm going to wait a little more before spinning a v1 to give people a little more time to complain about the objective of this patch. Regards, Halil
