On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 08:20:37AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 21:08:21 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:13:32PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:25:37 +0200 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 02:25:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > virtio-1 allow setting of the FEATURES_OK status bit to fail if > > > > > the negotiated feature bits are inconsistent: let's fail > > > > > virtio_set_status() in that case and update virtio-ccw to post an > > > > > error to the guest. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Right but a separate validate_features call is awkward. > > > > How about we defer virtio_set_features until FEATURES_OK, > > > > and teach virtio_set_features that it can fail? > > > > > > Hm. But we would need to keep virtio_set_features() where it is called > > > now for legacy devices, as they will never see FEATURES_OK, right? > > > So > > > we need to make this depending on revisions (or whatever the equivalent > > > is for pci/mmio), as we cannot check for VERSION_1. Not sure whether > > > this makes the code easier to follow. > > > > So let's make this a separate callback then. > > virtio_legacy_set_features? > > I'm not sure I like that. We'd need to touch every transport, right? Yes but there aren't so many. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
