On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:21:29AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:00:35AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > OK so this looks good. Can you pls repost with the minor tweak > > suggested and all acks included, and I will queue this? > > My NACK still stands, as long as a few questions are open: > > 1) The format used here will be the same as in the ACPI table? I > think the answer to this questions must be Yes, so this leads > to the real question:
I am not sure it's a must. We can always tweak the parser if there are slight differences between ACPI and virtio formats. But we do want the virtio format used here to be approved by the virtio TC, so it won't change. Eric, Jean-Philippe, does one of you intend to create a github issue and request a ballot for the TC? It's been posted end of August with no changes ... > 2) Has the ACPI table format stabalized already? If and only if > the answer is Yes I will Ack these patches. We don't need to > wait until the ACPI table format is published in a > specification update, but at least some certainty that it > will not change in incompatible ways anymore is needed. > Not that I know, but I don't see why it's a must. > So what progress has been made with the ACPI table specification, is it > just a matter of time to get it approved or are there concerns? > > Regards, > > Joerg _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
