On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:43:46 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 07:53:14PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:17:23PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > >> I would leave the device *exactly* as is, ugly structure packing and > > >> all. > > > > > > But why? It's going to be used for years, might as well make it clean? > > > > Because the only spec which currently exists says to do that. > > OK but the only spec which currently exists also says it's a legacy only > device, so driver must not set VERSION_1. So surely, we can make minor > changes when VERSION_1 is set, like we did for other devices. But we don't plan to replace the other devices, so it makes sense to do some changes for 1.0. > > Let me post the latest patches I'm working on, > see what you think then. > > > We do > > need a new virtio memballoon spec, but it'll look nothing like this > > anyway. > > > > Cheers, > > Rusty. > > I think it's going to have significantly different semantics, too, > so not much value in making that one work with current > drivers, right? > So why not just keep virtio-balloon as-is and just specify endianness etc. for 1.0? Keeps the old drivers going without hacks, and we can start with a fresh driver for the new virtio-balloon. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
