Hi, > b) Rather than a "legacy-only" model for virtio-0.9, it would be more > useful to have "transitional". This way the config would work for older > OSes that don't support virtio-1.0, and when/if the OS was upgraded such > that it supported virtio-1.0, that would be automatically used without > needing to change the config. Having a legacy-only (instead of transitional) model could be useful for regression-testing (i.e. whenever virtio-0.9 mode still works properly in guests with virtio-1.0 support). But that is pretty much the only reason I can think of to prefer the virtio-0.9 devices being legacy-only instead of transitional. > A) libosinfo starts telling consumers that the preferred virtio device > model for the relevant OSes is "virtio-0.9", and leaves the > recommendation for other OSes as "virtio". > > B) libvirt adds a "virtio-0.9" model for all virtio devices that > actually have virtio-0.9 support (a couple of devices never existed > prior to virtio-1.0 (rng and ???) so virtio-0.9 would be nonsensical for > them). input, gpu are 1.0 only too. > C) inside libvirt, the implementation of the "virtio-0.9" model is > identical to "virtio", except that the VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE flags for > these devices contain VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCI rather than > VIR_PCI_CONNECT_TYPE_PCIE, resulting in those devices being assigned to > a legacy PCI slot, and thus they would be transitional mode by default. Looks good to me. cheers, Gerd -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
