Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Forcing a guest driver change is a really big >> deal and I see no reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason >> to. >> >> So we're stuck with the 1.0 config layout for a very long time. > > We definitely must not force a guest change. The explicit aim of the > standard is that "legacy" and 1.0 be backward compatible. One > deliverable is a document detailing how this is done (effectively a > summary of changes between what we have and 1.0). If 2.0 is fully backwards compatible, great. It seems like such a difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate further. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > It's a delicate balancing act. My plan is to accompany any changes in > the standard with a qemu implementation, so we can see how painful those > changes are. And if there are performance implications, measure them. > > Cheers, > Rusty. > -- > 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 -- 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
