Re: [PATCH] Use PCI revision field to indicate virtio PCI ABI version

[Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>>  
>>>> That's not what I was agreeing too.  I don't want to plumb an ABI 
>>>> interface through virtio for each device.  This is what I didn't 
>>>> like about having an ABI field in the first place.  I'm thinking we 
>>>> should just drop both of these and instead just rely on feature bits.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Me also updating the our prototype code to the latest levels...
>>>
>>> And I agree with Anthony. Feature bits seems to be a much better 
>>> solution than ABI versions.
>>>   
>>
>> I agree that feature bits are the long term solution; but we need a 
>> short term solution before the ABI is stabilized.  We don't want to 
>> add feature bits now, since that will encode virtio development 
>> history into those bits (likely consuming most of them).
>
> Well then let's stick with the current patches I put out.  It gives us 
> a safe guard where we can gracefully break things.  I'm inclined to 
> think that we should not bother just "breaking" a particular device 
> but break all of them at once.  I don't want to overcomplicate 
> something that we expect to never use.
>

Yeah, okay.  We'll bump it one last time when 2.6.25 is released.

I'll merge the userspace side.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function