On 11/15/2011 07:56 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > This isn't a PCI device, so does it make sense to use a PCI vendor > > ID here? The kernel doesn't check the vendor ID at the moment, > > but presumably the idea of the field is to allow the kernel to > > work around implementation bugs/blacklist/whatever if necessary. > > If that's the theory then it would make more sense for QEMU and > > kvm-tool to use IDs that say "this is the QEMU implementation" > > and "this is the kvm-tool implementation". > > > > (I picked 0x554D4551 for QEMU...) > > > > -- PMM > > I just sheepishly filled in the only vendor ID I knew of in the virtio > spec :) > > Hmm... If thats the plan, it should probably be a virtio thing (not > virtio-mmio specific). > > Either way, it could also use some clarification in the spec. The spec only covers virtio-pci; this virtio-mmio is completely unspec'ed. IMO it's a timebomb waiting to explode. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
