On Mon, Feb 07 2022, Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:41:58 +0100 > Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> OTOH, the decision to make it mandatory is certainly sound, and covered >> by the spec. As the driver must be prepared for the device failing to >> accept FEATURES_OK, we can make it mandatory here -- we should just not >> say that it is considered mandatory from a spec standpoint. The spec >> allows to make it mandatory, and we make it mandatory in our >> implementation. > > Right. Was never my intention to say that it is considered mandatory > by the spec. I guess the spec considers it less optional than the > run of the mill features. > > Should I change the first sentence to something like "Unlike most virtio > features ACCESS_PATFORM is considered mandatory by QEMU, i.e. the driver > must accept it if offered by the device." If you do s/PATFORM/PLATFORM/ :), yes. That's a much shorter way of expressing what I had been trying to argue in my reply :)
