On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 01:45:51 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:29:24PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > One thing that I'm very much not convinced about is the naming, > > specifically leaving the virtio revision out: I get it that we > > Should Never Need™ another major version of the spec, but I'm > > afraid discounting the possibility outright might prove to be > > shortsighted and come back to bite us later, so I'd much rather > > keep it. > > > > And once that's done, "non-transitional" (while matching the > > language of the spec) starts to look a bit unnecessary when you > > could simply have > > > > virtio-*-pci > > virtio-*-pci-1 > > virtio-*-pci-1-transitional > > > > instead. But I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about > > keeping the virtio revision in the device name :) > > I like that suggestion. Makes the device names more explicit > _and_ shorter. I'll do that in v3. OTOH, that would mean we'd need to introduce new device types if we ever start to support a virtio 2.x standard. My understanding was that we'll want separate device types for transitional and non-transitional for two reasons: the bus which a device can be plugged into, and changing ids. Do we really expect huge changes in a possible 2.x standard that affect virtio-pci only, and not other virtio transports as well? -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
