On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:53:33PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Kay Sievers <kay@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:46:49PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:10:01PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> > >> >>> >> 1) if there is a guarantee now and in the future (even if only >> >>> >> restricted to netdevs) that no virtio bus will have a direct sibling >> >>> >> bus (i.e., with the same parent device); or >> >>> > >> >>> > I think this is the case. The virtio bus is an artifact. >> >>> > There's always a single one behind each pci device. >> >>> > Is this sufficient? >> >>> >> >>> I *think* is not good enough for udev to offer such functionality. >> >>> >> >>> We need an authoritative answer that this cannot happen with today's >> >>> code, and also that there are no plans to ever make multiple virtio >> >>> devices per parent device. >> > >> >> But if virtio will make such a promise, will that be sufficient? >> > >> > Sure. >> >> Any chance we could get such a guarantee? Anything else needed from >> our side? I have a pending patch that would be nice to get out, which >> would depend on such a guarantee. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tom > > I thought about this. The virtio spec makes it explicit for pci, > ccw and mmio devices. I think we can make this promise - if we > wanted to have many such buses, we can always make it something else, > not a virtio bus. > > So please just check the type of the bus - if it's virtio, > you can assume there is no sibling. Thanks! Will do. Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
