On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 08:32:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > If the order was to propose a new FSM uAPI compatible to the existing > bit definitions without the P2P states, then add a new ioctl and P2P > states, and require userspace to use the ioctl to validate support for > those new P2P states, I might be able to swallow that. That is what this achieves! Are you really asking that we have to redo all the docs/etc again just to split them slightly differently into patches? What benefit is this make work to anyone? Jason
