Ballot Details: Request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft virtio-1.0-wd03 from 2015-03-18 as a Committee Specification virtio-1.0-cs03 (CLOSED)
|Ballot Question||Should the TC accept changes listed in the description as non material, and Request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft with these changes as a Committee Specification?|
|Ballot Description||Please vote Yes if you agree with all of the following.
If you disagree, please vote No.
If you don't have an opinion, please vote Abstain.
I move that:
Conditional on the TC approving unanimously the
proposed resolutions to outstanding ballots:
to resolve issues VIRTIO-130, VIRTIO-133, VIRTIO-135, VIRTIO-136
The TC resolves that the following, previously and separately approved, changes to the specification are all Non-Material:
VIRTIO-129: legacy: clean up virtqueue layout definitions
Generalize ”Legacy Interfaces: A Note
on Virtqueue Layout” to allow for different
alignment requirements. Have pci and
ccw refer to that section for legacy devices.
Remove the double definition of virtqueue
alignment (which referred to legacy, but
was not tagged as such) from the ccw section.
See 2.4.2, 22.214.171.124.4.1 and 126.96.36.199.2.
VIRTIO-118: ccw: clarify basic channel commands
”Basic channel commands” seems to be
not as clear as it could, so let’s spell out
which channel commands we refer to. See
VIRTIO-116: ccw: allow WRITE_STATUS to fail
We want to be able to fail setting a status
on the device (e.g. FEATURES_OK if the
device can’t work with the features negotiated).
The easiest way to do that is to
allow the device to fail the WRITE_STATUS command
by posting a command reject. See 188.8.131.52.
VIRTIO-135: virtio-ring: comment fixup
virtio_ring.h included with spec has this
/* Support for avail_idx and used_idx fields */
it should really refer to avail_event
and used_event. See Appendix A.
VIRTIO-136: document idx field in virtqueue used ring
Section 2.4.8 The Virtqueue Used Ring
listed the idx field, but never documented
it. See 2.4.8.
The TC resolves to request a Special Majority Vote for the advancement of the draft
virtio-v1.0-wd03, with the above changes, with the addition of a changelog
listing the above changes, as a Committee Specification
Location of the specification draft with the above changes:
This archive includes the editable Tex sources,
specification in PDF and HTML formats, as well as
versions with changes since CS02 highlighted.
For convenience, specification in PDF format with above changes
highlighted is provided:
You can also use the "revision history" chapter to locate the changes more easily.
Reminder: A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. As the Virtio TC has adopted a standing rule to conduct business only by electronic ballot, without Meetings, a Voting Member who fails to cast a ballot in two consecutive Work Product Ballots loses his or her voting rights at the close of the second ballot missed.
VOTING CLOSED: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 @ 5:53 am EDT
|Open Date||Wednesday, 18 March 2015 @ 2:00 pm EDT|
|Close Date||Tuesday, 24 March 2015 @ 5:53 am EDT|
|Ballot Type||Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures|
|Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions)||9|
|Eligible members who have voted||9 of 9||100%|
|Eligible members who have not voted||0 of 9||0%|
|Options with highest number of votes are bold|
|Option||# Votes||% of Total|
|Voter Name||Company||Vote||Time (UTC)||Comments|
|Bottomley, James||Parallels IP Holdings GmbH||Yes||2015-03-20 18:16:00|
|Kiper, Daniel||Oracle||Yes||2015-03-23 12:30:00|
|Moll, Pawel||ARM Limited||Yes||2015-03-23 16:44:00|
|Mundt, Paul||Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.||Yes||2015-03-23 08:58:00|
|Shah, Amit||Red Hat||Yes||2015-03-19 10:03:00|
|Venteicher, Bryan||NetApp||Yes||2015-03-22 15:40:00|
|Huck, Cornelia||IBM||No||2015-03-24 07:50:00||1|
|Russell, Rusty||IBM||No||2015-03-24 01:04:00||1|
|Tsirkin, Michael||Red Hat||No||2015-03-24 09:52:00||1|
|No||Changed my vote to no due to the used->len improvements as well.
|No||Rusty convinced me that we need to add wording to
better define the meaning and
requirements of the len field.
changing vote to No.
|No||We should include the improved used->len definition, thus the NO vote.