On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:01:41 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <> 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 <>
> ---
> 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...
