From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754496Ab1KCNwQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:52:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43068 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752067Ab1KCNwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:52:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:53:17 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Avi Kivity Cc: Rusty Russell , Sasha Levin , Linus Torvalds , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , Alexey Kardashevskiy , Amit Shah , Christian Borntraeger , Krishna Kumar , Pawel Moll , Wang Sheng-Hui , Jesse Barnes , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio-pci: flexible configuration layout Message-ID: <20111103135316.GN18296@redhat.com> References: <87wrbkvh3v.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111101114542.GA13434@redhat.com> <1320150813.3847.24.camel@lappy> <20111101124223.GA14060@redhat.com> <8739e7uy87.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111102233110.GA20289@redhat.com> <4EB26ED0.3080409@redhat.com> <20111103121139.GF18296@redhat.com> <4EB29926.9030509@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB29926.9030509@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/03/2011 02:11 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:37:04PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 11/03/2011 01:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > Add a flexible mechanism to specify virtio configuration layout, using > > > > pci vendor-specific capability. A separate capability is used for each > > > > of common, device specific and data-path accesses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about posting the spec change instead of patches? > > > > We need both of course but I typically start with patches. > > Easier to see whether it's even possible to implement the > > spec without overhauling all of the code. > > Patches are okay for someone familiar with the code. For others, they > require more effort. Yes. It's just that I needed to convince myself that the approach is good, and that meant writing the supporting code. Since I had the code I didn't see a reason not to send it :) > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function