On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 05:21:25PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:45:11AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> writes:
> >> > Hmm I am not sure I agree - what does it buy us that feature bits don't already supply?
> >>
> >> AFAICT it's a PCI question more than a virtio question. The use of
> >> revision IDs is left open in the PCI spec, but Microsoft's requirements
> >> here seem reasonable:
> >>
> >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463287.aspx
> >
> > They are only reasonable if you consider a requirement that users
> > load new drivers for new revision of devices reasonable.
>
> Well, I think it's reasonable for a driver to contain revision-specific
> workarounds. That's kind of what the field is for.
Right. And when talking about hardware, it's a safe bet there
will be work-arounds for each new revision.
It's hopefully not applicable for virtio.
