From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54516) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLx3F-0006Wb-HW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:09:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLx3B-0000cW-B6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:09:49 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:36398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLx3B-0000cI-7C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:09:45 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e2.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:08:33 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pA3D799r213712 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:07:10 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pA3D71Tg001167 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:07:02 -0600 Message-ID: <4EB291F4.8070503@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:07:00 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1317360376-12090-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <4EB07096.4070806@us.ibm.com> <4EB26EA5.4060606@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB26EA5.4060606@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO BAR List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Gibson On 11/03/2011 05:36 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/02/2011 12:20 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied. You should update the virtio-pci >> spec too. > > Should be the other way round. Am not entirely sure. Having worked code that's been reviewed will make for a better spec. Writing the spec and committing to the spec change before getting either side of the implementation merged seems to be asking for trouble to me. We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should it go (2), (1), (3)? Regards, Anthony Liguori >