From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47597) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a1VNk-0000zq-TY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 03:24:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a1VNh-0003AP-NO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 03:24:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a1VNh-0003AI-Ht for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 03:24:49 -0500 References: <1447930344-17625-1-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.com> <1447930344-17625-2-git-send-email-shmulik.ladkani@ravellosystems.com> <56551F3B.9020106@redhat.com> <20151125081820.0c147ea8@pixies> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <56557047.7090205@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:24:39 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151125081820.0c147ea8@pixies> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] vmxnet3: The vmxnet3 device is a PCIE endpoint List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Shmulik Ladkani Cc: Dmitry Fleytman , idan.brown@ravellosystems.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11/25/2015 02:18 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > Thanks Jason, > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:38:51 +0800, jasowang@redhat.com wrote: >>> @@ -2568,6 +2572,7 @@ static void vmxnet3_class_init(ObjectClass *class, void *data) >>> c->class_id = PCI_CLASS_NETWORK_ETHERNET; >>> c->subsystem_vendor_id = PCI_VENDOR_ID_VMWARE; >>> c->subsystem_id = PCI_DEVICE_ID_VMWARE_VMXNET3; >>> + c->is_express = 1; >> Should we do this conditionally? And how about the migration >> compatibility? Looks like pcie device is using vmstate_pcie_device >> instead of vmstate_pci_device, maybe need a new property bit for this. > (Responding for the entire series) > > Agreed. Will limit these changes for new versions. > > What's your suggested plan? > Does it make sense to have a property for each change (as they are not > necessarily related), or is it too tedious and one property will suffice? Since they are not necessarily related, we'd better use a property for each change. Thanks > > Regards, > Shmulik >