On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 05:03:00PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > If we're writing a specification, that's really a MAY statement, > > userspace MAY issue a reset to abort the RESUMING process and return > > the device to RUNNING. They MAY also write the device_state directly, > > which MAY return an error depending on various factors such as whether > > data has been written to the migration state and whether that data is > > complete. If a failed transitions results in an ERROR device_state, > > the user MUST issue a reset in order to return it to a RUNNING state > > without closing the interface. > > Are we actually writing a specification? If yes, we need to be more > clear on what is mandatory (MUST), advised (SHOULD), or allowed > (MAY). If I look at the current proposal, I'm not sure into which > category some of the statements fall. I deliberately didn't use such formal language because this is far from what I'd consider an acceptable spec. It is more words about how things work and some kind of basis for agreement between user and kernel. Under Linus's "don't break userspace" guideline whatever userspace ends up doing becomes the spec the kernel is wedded to, regardless of what we write down here. Which basically means whatever mlx5 and qemu does after we go forward is the definitive spec and we cannot change qemu in a way that is incompatible with mlx5 or introduce a new driver that is incompatible with qemu. Jason
