[PATCH v5] conformance: fix confusion about legacy interface

Supercedes: 	"conformance: clarify transitional/non-transitional"  The text describing the legacy interface also obliquely refers to a non-transitional implementation. This seems to cause confusion and there's no good reason to do it here: this section is about legacy interface and transitional devices, it add not value at all. Just drop it. We need to tweak wording in the next paragraph to avoid saying "additionally" since there's nothing to add to anymore.  Note: the spec does not make it clear whether description of the legacy interface is normative or not, and in particular, this section is not linked to from any conformance targets. Resolving that is left for after 1.1 since the text is not new and was already there in 1.0.  VIRTIO-167  Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <> ---  conformance.tex
6 +

-----

1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)  diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex index 6df113b..ce51463 100644 --- a/conformance.tex +++ b/conformance.tex @@ -341,13 +341,9 @@ A conformant implementation MUST be either transitional or  non-transitional, see
ef{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  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.

--
MST