On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 05:24:02PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-16 at 15:40 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:45:43PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > But I don't want to create unnecessary obstacles for libvirt, so > > > if there's a real benefit in promising compatibility between both > > > device types, we can still promise that on the QEMU side. > > > > I don't think there's an obstacle for libvirt, as I don't see any > > compelling reason to avoid the new devices when we have QEMU >= 4.0. > > Alright, let's do it that way then. > > I still think it's important to maintain the relationship between > old and new devices consistent going forward, because not doing so > will certainly result in confusion for those using QEMU directly. Agreed that it's a good thing to have. I will extend the existing virtio_version.py test case to be more strict and try to catch mistakes that would break compatibility between the two device types in the future. -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
