On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:10:48PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 16:10 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 07/24/2012 11:45 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> >
> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.h b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.h
> > >> > index e942df9..3d5378f 100644
> > >> > --- a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.h
> > >> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.h
> > >> > @@ -80,7 +80,17 @@ struct tcm_vhost_tport {
> > >> >
> > >> > #include <linux/vhost.h>
> > >> >
> > >> > +/*
> > >> > + * Used by QEMU userspace to ensure a consistent vhost-scsi ABI.
> > >> > + *
> > >> > + * ABI Rev 0: All pre 2012 revisions used by prototype out-of-tree code
> > >> > + * ABI Rev 1: 2012 version for v3.6 kernel merge candiate
> > >> > + */
> >
> >
> > If it's out of tree, why consider it at all? Put a stable ABI in tree
> > and extend it in compatible ways.
> >
> >
>
> This comment was supposed to convey that ABI=0 vhost-scsi userspace code
> is not supported with tcm_vhost mainline code.
>
> But obviously that was not clear enough here. Updating the comment to
> reflect to make this clear.
>
> So the main question here was if it's fine to start with ABI=1, and
> require >= ABI=1 for all vhost-scsi userspace code to function with
> tcm_vhost.
>
> The idea was to avoid confusion for the ABI=0 vhost-scsi code that's
> been floating around for the last 2 years.
>
> --nab
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes but I am guessing that code does not invoke the ABI ioctl?
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
