On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 20:14 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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. It is, look at Appendix X of the virtio-pci spec. -- Sasha. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
