From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40878)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1bVOkn-0005hm-PA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:56:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1bVOkh-0001mR-QT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:56:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47732)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1bVOkh-0001mN-Ko
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:56:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 22:56:20 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160804225402-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <1470043221-37728-1-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
	<1470043221-37728-2-git-send-email-arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
	<82063967A54EF84C8AFCD6BD7F6AD9330E054607@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<33183CC9F5247A488A2544077AF19020B03894EF@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <33183CC9F5247A488A2544077AF19020B03894EF@SZXEMA503-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 1/2] virtio-crypto: Add virtio crypto
 device specification
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
Cc: "Zeng, Xin" <xin.zeng@intel.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, "virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org" <virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@huawei.com>, Luonengjun <luonengjun@huawei.com>, "cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com" <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>, "stefanha@redhat.com" <stefanha@redhat.com>, "denglingli@chinamobile.com" <denglingli@chinamobile.com>, Jani Kokkonen <Jani.Kokkonen@huawei.com>, "Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com" <Ola.Liljedahl@arm.com>, "Varun.Sethi@freescale.com" <Varun.Sethi@freescale.com>, "Keating, Brian A" <brian.a.keating@intel.com>, "Ma, Liang J" <liang.j.ma@intel.com>, "Griffin, John" <john.griffin@intel.com>, "Hanweidong (Randy)" <hanweidong@huawei.com>, "Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@huawei.com>

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:24:26AM +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > > +The first driver-read-only field, \field{version} specifies the virtio crypto's
> > > +version, which is reserved for back-compatibility in future.It's currently
> > > +defined for the version field:
> > > +
> > > +\begin{lstlisting}
> > > +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_VERSION_1  (1)
> > 
> > Suggest to remove this macro,
> > Do you think a version which is composed of major version and
> > minor version is better?
> > 
> 
> I think we should tell the developer how to set the value of version field,
> but I have no idea about which value or form is better, so I used 1 as the
> first version. What's your opinion?

My opinion is that you should drop this completely. We do feature bits,
not version numbers in virtio. We do not want each device doing its own
thing for compatibility.

-- 
MST