Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
That's not what I was agreeing too. I don't want to plumb an ABI
interface through virtio for each device. This is what I didn't
like about having an ABI field in the first place. I'm thinking we
should just drop both of these and instead just rely on feature bits.
Me also updating the our prototype code to the latest levels...
And I agree with Anthony. Feature bits seems to be a much better
solution than ABI versions.
I agree that feature bits are the long term solution; but we need a
short term solution before the ABI is stabilized. We don't want to
add feature bits now, since that will encode virtio development
history into those bits (likely consuming most of them).
Well then let's stick with the current patches I put out. It gives us
a safe guard where we can gracefully break things. I'm inclined to
think that we should not bother just "breaking" a particular device
but break all of them at once. I don't want to overcomplicate
something that we expect to never use.
Yeah, okay. We'll bump it one last time when 2.6.25 is released.
I'll merge the userspace side.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
