On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:55:30 +0100, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/01/2011 04:14 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I'd prefer to see the spec only cover things
> > which are implemented and tested, otherwise the risk of a flaw in the
> > spec is really high in my experience.
>
> In general I agree, and I did that for virtio-specific things such as
> the eventq and the configuration space. This is also why I don't want
> to add untested controlq requests that people suggested.
>
> However, there's tension between this and providing a complete SCSI
> transport. SCSI is roughly defined as a set of RPC interfaces ("Send
> command", "Abort task", etc.) and transports provide the RPC protocol.
> The SCSI command set changes relatively often, but the RPC interfaces
> are pretty stable. This stability limits the risk, and having a mapping
> for all interfaces also makes future changes less likely.
OK, I expect that someone reading the spec will be SCSI-familiar more
than virtio-familiar, so it's more important that they be comfortable,
than that I be comfortable.
Thanks!
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
