On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 01:45:51 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:29:24PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
One thing that I'm very much not convinced about is the naming, specifically leaving the virtio revision out: I get it that we Should Never Need™ another major version of the spec, but I'm afraid discounting the possibility outright might prove to be shortsighted and come back to bite us later, so I'd much rather keep it.
And once that's done, "non-transitional" (while matching the language of the spec) starts to look a bit unnecessary when you could simply have
virtio-*-pci virtio-*-pci-1 virtio-*-pci-1-transitional
instead. But I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about keeping the virtio revision in the device name :)
I like that suggestion. Makes the device names more explicit _and_ shorter. I'll do that in v3.
OTOH, that would mean we'd need to introduce new device types if we ever start to support a virtio 2.x standard. My understanding was that we'll want separate device types for transitional and non-transitional for two reasons: the bus which a device can be plugged into, and changing ids. Do we really expect huge changes in a possible 2.x standard that affect virtio-pci only, and not other virtio transports as well?