On 07.07.20 12:54, Cornelia Huck wrote: > As discussed in "virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage", it seems like > a good idea to make sure that any new virtio device (which does not > support legacy virtio) is indeed a non-transitional device, just to > catch accidental misconfigurations. We can easily compile a list > of virtio devices with legacy support and have transports verify > in their plugged callbacks that legacy support is off for any device > not in that list. > > Most new virtio devices force non-transitional already, so nothing > changes for them. vhost-user-fs-pci even does not allow to configure > a non-transitional device, so it is fine as well. > > One problematic device, however, is virtio-iommu-pci. It currently > offers both the transitional and the non-transitional variety of the > device, and does not force anything. I'm unsure whether we should > consider transitional virtio-iommu unsupported, or if we should add > some compat handling. (The support for legacy or not generally may > change based upon the bus, IIUC, so I'm unsure how to come up with > something generic.) > > Cornelia Huck (2): > virtio: list legacy-capable devices > virtio: verify that legacy support is not accidentally on
I'd squash both patches. Looking at patch #1, I wonder why we don't store that information along with the device implementation? What was the motivation to define this information separately? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
