On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 05:06:31PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> 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?
Donnu :(
> I'm currently very confused by the avalanche of patches and which issues
> they fix...
It could be easiest to follow links under ballots.
Each ballot is linked to the patch.
--
MST
