From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619DC3B71D6 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 02:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789697799; cv=none; b=CYa4kA57nbw3qi+hLc5Iyt3Y8aM4B4VvWI1LWgIzee5QbyGdnl/VGeq0XJL8j4gA7R6/oHnVq6wdIwUonxUuhhp4mljd6rydCWUTVZ4C+xS5SiRfE5UwbZjzx8anWNCUkzHX8i+TjG0CT7513YB1crtaLv0sdxXFvD+1wOiBKnc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789697799; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mp9iwOcMguzCSNN5DUpE/a/yKBgwTN3XoKduo6Oo7tk=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=qQzJv9AqMW6Agm5DrNJURwRJGxvS0yvoj5ayY9TkQsRssARZGSptVXPlmxqYRzymhQRyXpKwtV6ehNiN/I6tl19ETgIQ6excCPK0c+P7l/c9cOc4kOlJe+af5L2qMofcJLRoAE88zVgncjIpmOkCRGs4pLMvlp78rI1QxiZjRIA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=PAzbonfO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="PAzbonfO" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C32D01F000FF; Fri, 18 Sep 2026 02:16:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789697798; bh=4CiRMjRojr6ANEBnN2WvoWepwKygnuPyfjcL7kwMGQo=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=PAzbonfOcVvIn8Xyi3hzvzz9J80ocRh32ocluXh2IHwj+gM852KP3Bz6YSsOrwMkj VZW8EIVS5h8wy9/9wCjYkXVF5ql9LCUIM5fa1mOJWevMQhJrT3PLlHS95ytuFiym5G p/fG2CPHl7LhqO/PnWBvkdR/9D24XGWnbG8ukSmovtFkoheXo7bzYbCSljKgxK7Bvv 2aAZIMuD7smCBxIZQKq9Edb6SycWVff6viwe3D7MBLJGt7Fsx6WQWPF0EAQg2hI7cf JS0zrBG/sECjghIfaUOgTJtcEgpdwiqSVQW3b6FlyPgKbqlov9iIuZO5i3JMqm3SBD feAdHFSqTEOwQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] drm/virtio-gpu: Add VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM capability Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Honglei Huang" Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "Eugenio Perez" In-Reply-To: <20260918021154.1432154-2-honghuan@amd.com> References: <20260918021154.1432154-1-honghuan@amd.com> <20260918021154.1432154-2-honghuan@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 02:16:37 +0000 Message-Id: <20260918021637.C32D01F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] virtio: speculative UAPI capability set ID assignment -- commit 45781e0bfdae22c4f82ae57badc273b48904b478 Author: Honglei Huang drm/virtio-gpu: Add VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM capability This commit adds a new GPU capability set VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM to support ROCm compute workloads in virtualized environments using ID 8. The commit message notes that a matching virtio-gpu specification change is currently in progress. > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_= gpu.h > index 4f530d90058c7..3d4dfadc9d789 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_gpu.h > @@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ struct virtio_gpu_cmd_submit { > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_VENUS 4 > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_CROSS_DOMAIN 5 > #define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_DRM 6 > +#define VIRTIO_GPU_CAPSET_ROCM 8 [Severity: Medium] Is it safe to speculatively assign a UAPI capability set ID while the virtio specification change is still in progress? If the virtio technical committee assigns ID 8 to a different capability set or assigns a different ID to ROCm, the Linux kernel UAPI will permanently diverge from the official OASIS standard, which could break interoperability with spec-compliant hypervisors. Should this UAPI addition wait until the specification assignment is formal= ly accepted? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260918021154.1432= 154-1-honghuan@amd.com?part=3D1