From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use PCI revision field to indicate virtio PCI ABI version Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:29:53 +0100 Message-ID: <200801291529.53808.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> References: <1201535999-13998-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <479EDDCE.8000000@qumranet.com> <479F3528.9040203@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <479F3528.9040203@us.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Anthony Liguori List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 schrieb Anthony Liguori: > That's not what I was agreeing too. I don't want to plumb an ABI > interface through virtio for each device. This is what I didn't like > about having an ABI field in the first place. I'm thinking we should > just drop both of these and instead just rely on feature bits. Me also updating the our prototype code to the latest levels... And I agree with Anthony. Feature bits seems to be a much better solution than ABI versions. Christian