On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 10:27:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:12:59PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > Rolling v4 now. > > > > Great thanks! I think the result will be in a good shape from > > the ABI point of view. Good job! > > > > I think so far Jason was the only one with significant comments > > on the series so let's see what he says. > > I can't say I like this. I prefer to do meditation on top of a modern > device with some lightweight features like _F_LEAGCY_HEADER. I don't > see any advantages of a new legacy ABI over _F_LEGACY_HEADER. I don't > want to repeat but I don't get any response here > > https://lore.kernel.org/virtio-dev/cacgkmeuixsbibsq_peqvckoh0wbqwnta4q2c28sv8qts8ga...@mail.gmail.com/#t
After trying to write this I came away with a conviction that if hardware vendors are prepared to implement legacy in hardware we should let them do exactly that. > > > > From my personal POV what will be left to do to get this > > feature ready for merging would be > > > > - tightening the language: > > - thinking of and addressing all kind of corner cases. > > We need first to check whether it's possible (not too late) to find > all the corner cases. > > Thanks For sure, but of course we need to stop arguing about whether to have the feature in the 1st place. > > > > > > Since by now from our email discussions I have I think > > a decent understanding of how the feature is supposed to work > > I understand how these things work but I think there are still > > things that would be a bit unclear for an unprepared reader. > > > > Just to give a random example, there's no explicit > > time where the member kind of switches to the legacy/back to modern > > mode. I am guessing setting DRIVER bit through legacy interface > > does this. We'll want to list that. > > > > I'll try to help find these issues and maybe even suggest wording. > > > > I've delayed commenting on these until the high level design is agreed > > on, didn't want to make you waste time on polishing as the patches > > undergo significant changes, and I suggest you do the same in v4: let's > > make sure there's a wide agreement on the ABI then focus on the spec > > language. > > > > > > > > -- > > MST > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
