[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 06:22:40PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > Was, kind of, the point I tried to make. I've (for myself) given up on > these ideals. That's why I did not bother to think about isn't that sentence > normative section material. And I don't intend to clean up normative > vs

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-20 Thread Halil Pasic
On 04/20/2018 05:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: My concern (regarding the whole spec) is the completeness and self the containment of it's normative portion -- I'm not sure if either is pursued rigorously. No it isn't, and the

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-20 Thread Michael S. Tsirkin
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > My concern (regarding the whole spec) is the completeness and self > the containment of it's normative portion -- I'm not sure if either is > pursued rigorously. No it isn't, and the reason is we do not want to bring the development

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-20 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 10/04/2018 16:59, Halil Pasic wrote: >> I agree with that - but IMO you're now separating two related paragraphs. > > I'm not separating them they were separated, but I get your point. Yeah, I meant separating them with a heading. >> The driver MUST ensure the write to the \field{flags} field

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-10 Thread Halil Pasic
On 04/10/2018 01:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/04/2018 12:25, Halil Pasic wrote: >> All I did was to move the device normative to a better place. IMHO >> it's current place is obviously wrong. > > I agree with that - but IMO you're now separating two related paragraphs. > I'm not

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-10 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 10/04/2018 12:25, Halil Pasic wrote: > All I did was to move the device normative to a better place. IMHO > it's current place is obviously wrong. I agree with that - but IMO you're now separating two related paragraphs. > So, I read your comment as > there should be a patch on top that

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-10 Thread Halil Pasic
On 04/09/2018 09:51 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 09/04/2018 20:58, Halil Pasic wrote: >> The driver has to be careful to expose the new \field{flags} >> value before checking if notifications are suppressed. > > This paragraph should also be reworked to be part of the normative text > below,

[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

2018-04-09 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 09/04/2018 20:58, Halil Pasic wrote: > The driver has to be careful to expose the new \field{flags} > value before checking if notifications are suppressed. This paragraph should also be reworked to be part of the normative text below, I think? The memory barrier must be "between two