On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:42:56 +0930 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:57:35PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> Virtio 1.0 doesn't include a modern balloon device. At some point we'll likely > >> define an incompatible interface with a different ID and different > >> semantics. But for now, it's not a big effort to support a transitional > >> balloon device: this has the advantage of supporting existing drivers, > >> transparently, as well as transports that don't allow mixing virtio 0 and > >> virtio 1 devices. And balloon is an easy device to test, so it's also useful > >> for people to test virtio core handling of transitional devices. > >> > >> The only interface issue is with the stats buffer, which has misaligned > >> fields. We could leave it as is, but this sets a bad precedent that > >> others might copy by mistake. > >> > >> As we need to change stats code to do byteswaps for virtio 1.0, it seems easy > >> to fix by prepending a 6 byte reserved field. I also had to change config > >> structure field types from __le32 to __u32 to match other devices. This means > >> we need a couple of __force tags for legacy path but that seems minor. > > > > Rusty, what are your thoughts here? > > How about merging this for 4.1? > > I disagree with making any changes, other than allowing it to be used > with VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1. > > However it doesn't seem to bother anyone else, so I've applied it for > 4.1. I'm still not really convinced about the stats change either, FWIW. Still time to reconsider? And should we perhaps wait with merging until the spec change allowing version 1 has been accepted? _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
