On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 11:47 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Rusty has just removed it out of the spec. Since we probably the only ones > > who implemented support for it, we should remove it out of our code as well. > > > > There is no issue with breaking anything since nothing else worked with it, > > so it's fully backwards compatible. > > > > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> > > Applied, thanks! > > How is this going to work going forward? Should I ask Rusty for an ACK > before merging code that implements some (new) part of the virtio > spec? I like the fact that we're bleeding edge but it's pointless for > everyone involved if we implement something that's known to be > half-baked in the spec. There was a little cheating involved here since the spec basically broke backwards compatibility by removing 64 bit features, so it's a special case and probably won't happen (too many times) again. Half baked features usually don't go into the spec as well, Rusty usually insists on having a working code besides just spec updates, so again - this was one of those rare special cases. If Rusty or Michael could ACK our virtio patches it would be awesome. -- Sasha. -- 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
