On 02/06/2018 12:20 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 12:10:20 +0100 > Halil Pasic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 02/06/2018 01:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 11:54:52PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: [..] >> In the CIO transport we have an explicit mention of virtio 1.0 (explains >> revision 1). I wonder if that is still appropriate. Shouldn't that just >> be virtio 1? > > We can certainly do s/1.0/1/ in the ccw transport (mind doing a patch?) >
Will do. > For the greater picture: As I see it, any implementation conforming to > 1.1 is also conforming to 1.0. To conform to 1.1, it only needs the > split layout. I think we can continue with that for any further > iterations of 1.n (and keep VERSION_1 as it is now.) > Agreed. I will think a bit if there is an elegant way to codify this in the spec. > What we want to do with version 2.n (should that ever come up) is up > for discussion (can an implementation conform to version 2 but not to > version 1?). But I prefer to cross that bridge when we come to it. > I agree. There is no reason to ponder about this right now. Regards, Halil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
