On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:44:02 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote:
> 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 \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
> 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.
>
It's probably best we can do right now if we don't want to do more
invasive changes... fine with me as well.
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <>
