Re: [PATCH RFC] vfio: Revise and update the migration uAPI description

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 09:06:14AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:40:28 -0400
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 08:32:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > > If the order was to propose a new FSM uAPI compatible to the existing
> > > bit definitions without the P2P states, then add a new ioctl and P2P
> > > states, and require userspace to use the ioctl to validate support for
> > > those new P2P states, I might be able to swallow that.  
> > 
> > That is what this achieves!
> > 
> > Are you really asking that we have to redo all the docs/etc again just
> > to split them slightly differently into patches? What benefit is this
> > make work to anyone?
> 
> Only if you're really set on trying to claim compatibility with the
> existing migration sub-type.  The simpler solution is to roll the
> arc-supported ioctl into this proposal, bump the sub-type to v2 and

How about we just order the arc-supported ioctl patch first, then the
spec revision and include the language about how to use arc-supported
that is currently in the arc-supported ioctl?

I'm still completely mystified why you think we need to bump the
sub-type at all??

If you insist, but I'd like a good reason because I know it is going
to hurt a bunch of people out there. ie can you point at something
that is actually practically incompatible?

Jason