On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:55:27 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:24:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > Another point, as we discussed in another thread, it's really hard to make > > sure the above API work for all types of devices and frameworks. So having a > > vendor specific API looks much better. > > From the POV of userspace mgmt apps doing device compat checking / migration, > we certainly do NOT want to use different vendor specific APIs. We want to > have an API that can be used / controlled in a standard manner across vendors. As we certainly will need to have different things to check for different device types and vendor drivers, would it still be fine to have differing (say) attributes, as long as they are presented (and can be discovered) in a standardized way? (See e.g. what I came up with for vfio-ccw in a different branch of this thread.) E.g. version= <type>.type_specific_value0= <type>.type_specific_value1= <vendor_driver>.vendor_driver_specific_value0= with a type or vendor driver having some kind of get_supported_attributes method?
