On Tue, 7 May 2019 01:39:13 -0400
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao(a)intel.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:29:08PM +0800, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> If I followed the discussion correctly, I think you plan to drop
this
> format, don't you? I'd be happy if a vendor driver can use a simple
> number without any prefixes if it so chooses.
>
> I also like the idea of renaming this "migration_version" so that it is
> clear we're dealing with versioning of the migration capability (and
> not a version of the device or so).
hi Cornelia,
sorry I just saw this mail after sending v2 of this patch set...
yes, I dropped the common part and vendor driver now can define whatever it
wishes to identify a device version.
Ok, I'll look at v2.
However, I don't agree to rename it to
"migration_version", as it still may
bring some kind of confusing with the migration version a vendor driver is
using, e.g. vendor driver changes migration code and increases that migration
version.
In fact, what info we want to get from this attribute is whether this mdev
device is compatible with another mdev device, which is tied to device, and not
necessarily bound to migration.
do you think so?
I'm not 100% convinced; but we can continue the discussion on v2.