On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 08:23:44 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 05:59:03AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 08:59:56AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 03:11:43 -0500
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:45:52AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > > > On 28.10.19 11:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > Vendors might want to add their own capability
> > > > > > in the PCI capability list. However, Virtio already
> > > > > > uses the vendor specific capability ID (0x09)
> > > > > > for its own purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did some vendor express that need, or do we only assume it so far? IOW: Do
> > > > > we know at least once concrete use case?
> > > >
> > > > Good point, I should have added this in the log.
> > > >
> > > > I know of a device that implements virtio and has a bug.
> > > >
> > > > Device is a transitional one so can not have vendor specific
> > > > subsystem IDs (that violates the SHOULD below. Do we want to qualify
> > > > that this recommendation is for non-transitional devices?). While that
> > >
> > > What about adding some notes on top that vendor specific subsystem IDs
> > > are not for transitional devices? That would also catch the case in the
> > > other update.
>
>
> So how about I just skip the following chunk when I commit?
>
> +The device SHOULD present the PCI subsystem vendor ID matching
> +the device vendor, at offset 0x2C in its PCI configuration space
> +header.
>
> that seems to belong to the other ballot that I have withdrawn.
>
> Minor enough that I don't feel we need to redo the whole ballot,
> right?.
>
I think that's fine.
