On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:03 AM Cornelia Huck <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:28:34 -0400 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:13:55AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:11:15 -0700 > > > Alexander Duyck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:28 PM Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 04.09.20 18:56, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:20 AM Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 25.08.20 16:45, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> @@ -5042,13 +5049,17 @@ \subsection{Feature > > > > > >>> bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Memory Balloon Device / Featu > > > > > >>> VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST is not negotiated. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types > > > > > >>> / Memory Balloon Device / Device configuration layout} > > > > > >>> - Both fields of this configuration > > > > > >>> - are always available. > > > > > >>> + \field{num_pages} and \field{actual} are always available. > > > > > >>> + > > > > > >>> + \field{free_page_hint_cmd_id} is available if > > > > > >>> + VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated and is > > > > > >>> read-only by > > > > > >>> + the driver. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> This reads at least to me like "...if > > > > > >> VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT > > > > > >> ... is read-only by the driver". I suspect you rather meant > > > > > >> "free_page_hint_cmd_id is read-only...". Maybe split up into two > > > > > >> sentences? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the intention is: > > > > > > 1. free_page_hint_cmd_id is only available if > > > > > > VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated > > > > > > 2. free_page_hint_cmd_id is read only by the driver > > > > > > > > > > > > If needed I suppose we could break it up by splitting it into two > > > > > > sentences, or adding "the field" after the "and". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm fine with both options but please adjust this - on top (Michael > > > > > just > > > > > opened the voting for this version again due to the formal typo in > > > > > round 1). > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > Since the patch set is being voted on is there a preferred method for > > > > making this sort of update? I'm just wondering if I should do an > > > > additional incremental patch, just submit a replacement for this > > > > patch, or make the change and resubmit the entire patch set? > > > > > > I think doing an additional patch on top and then doing another vote on > > > that is the best way to handle this. (Or maybe it is minor enough to > > > simply merge the incremental patch?) > > > > yes, this sounds good to me > > Which one of the options, actually? I'd be happy to merge a proper > patch on top (which I'd consider a trivial fix.)
I had submitted a 4/3 for this set that was meant to fix it, but looking it over I don't think it would apply cleanly as I think I had only applied the patch it fixed and didn't have the poison patch applied when I generated it. If you need I can resubmit that patch as a trivial fix since it is only a 2 line change. Thanks. - Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
