On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:55:30 +0100, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/01/2011 04:14 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I'd prefer to see the spec only cover things > > which are implemented and tested, otherwise the risk of a flaw in the > > spec is really high in my experience. > > In general I agree, and I did that for virtio-specific things such as > the eventq and the configuration space. This is also why I don't want > to add untested controlq requests that people suggested. > > However, there's tension between this and providing a complete SCSI > transport. SCSI is roughly defined as a set of RPC interfaces ("Send > command", "Abort task", etc.) and transports provide the RPC protocol. > The SCSI command set changes relatively often, but the RPC interfaces > are pretty stable. This stability limits the risk, and having a mapping > for all interfaces also makes future changes less likely.
OK, I expect that someone reading the spec will be SCSI-familiar more than virtio-familiar, so it's more important that they be comfortable, than that I be comfortable. Thanks! Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
