virtio — archive

[PATCH v2] conformance: clarify transitional/non-transitional

From: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:07:00 -0000

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:01:41 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > We already have a specification for conformance targets for > non-transitional devices. > Just add another clause that transitional devices satisfy. > > VIRTIO-167 > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > --- > conformance.tex | 8 ++ ------ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex > index 6df113b..8b69e39 100644 > --- a/conformance.tex > +++ b/conformance.tex > @@ -341,13 +341,9 @@ A conformant implementation MUST be either transitional or > non-transitional, see \ref{intro:Legacy > Interface: Terminology}. > > -A non-transitional implementation conforms to this specification > -if it satisfies all of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements > -defined above. > - > -An implementation MAY choose to implement OPTIONAL support for the > +A transitional implementation MUST implement support for the > legacy interface, including support for legacy drivers > -or devices, by additionally conforming to all of the MUST or > +or devices, by conforming to all of the MUST or > REQUIRED level requirements for the legacy interface > for the transitional devices and drivers. > Wouldn't that be v4? I'm currently very confused by the avalanche of patches and which issues they fix...