Pawel Moll <> writes:
> On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 16:58 +0000, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> ATM you can put any value that makes sense there I think, drivers will bind >> and work. >
> That's true, I'm fine with this. >
> But try to put yourself into such guy's shoes. You know nothing about
> virtio. You have to implement a virtio PCI device for your custom
> system. You're looking at the PCI spec, which tells you that you've got
> to put some values into the device's configuration space. And the virtio
> spec doesn't tell you what numbers should you use. >
> I appreciate it's convenient for us not to specify such details. Maybe
> it's the right thing to do. But I also understand my colleague's
> frustration with this aspect of the spec. Thus the discussion. This. The spec *exists* so we get more, good implementations. What helps this? Including a non-normative paragraph discussing use of PCI class? Or ignoring it and leaving implementers confused and frustrated so we look more rigorous? In fact, let me now offer a beer to anyone on the committee who adds a decent joke to the spec. Because the spec is for humans, and I want readers to like it so much they tell their friends to implement it. Thanks, Rusty.
