On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:19:16 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>> 0x1000-0x10ff is correct. I don't know where the 0x103f came from.
>>> Rusty?
>>>
>>
>> We decided to hedge our bets in case we broke the ABI.
>>
>> AFAICT there's no reason to claim the full range until we need it. Wake
>> me
>> when device #32 is used :)
>>
>
> Would be good to at least include the "experiment range" in case people are
> making third-party virtio modules and want to play around without replacing
> virtio-{pci,*}.
I 'd be happy with a simple comment explaining the 0x103f (e.g.,
/* Not yet using the full 0x1000 - 0x10ef to hedge our bets in case we
broke the ABI.*/
as explained above)
plus including the experimental range as Anthony proposed.
The reason I came across this was I was playing with such a simple "third party"
module and after reading pci-ids.txt I decided to choose 0x10f5 for myself
only to find out that virtio_pci (and therefore my driver too) would
not load any more.
Thanks,
Pantelis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
