From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41366) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNQZe-0005eL-JC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNQZY-0000jO-91 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:22 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:42887) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RNQZY-0000j6-54 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:16 -0500 Received: by gyb11 with SMTP id 11so4473322gyb.4 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 06:53:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4EB7F0D8.2060306@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:53:12 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1320663634-29453-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <4EB7E896.9010108@redhat.com> <4EB7EC4A.90607@redhat.com> <4EB7EE62.7070805@redhat.com> <4EB7EEDD.4090604@codemonkey.ws> <4EB7F027.10209@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4EB7F027.10209@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1.0] ac97: don't override the pci subsystem id List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Takashi Iwai , Gerd Hoffmann , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/07/2011 08:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 11/07/2011 04:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>>> This a guest ABI change. Do we want -M support for it? >>>> >>>> Given that the old subsystem id isn't valid I'd say no unless someone >>>> comes up with a good reason. >>> >>> Do we know that Windows won't complain about it? >> >> >> I thought the original motivation for the default subsystem ids was >> that some Windows test suite was explicitly complaining about having >> invalid subsystem ids? > > I think so, but that's unrelated. The worry is that some DRM code > checksums your hardware and complains if it changed too much. Nothing > to do with the test suite. > > The sense of Gerd's comment is reversed. We should preserve the ABI > unless there is a strong reason not to. Yes, I understand where you're coming from and I agree except when it comes to bug fixes. My view toward bug fixes is the opposite--unless we know that the bug fix breaks something, we should fix the bug. If it's a bug, we have to assume it's breaking something. Regards, Anthony Liguori