On 27/07/16 6:58 pm, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:56:18PM +0000, Prerna Saxena wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>> Thanks, please find my reply inline.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/07/16 4:35 pm, "Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi
>> >
>> >On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Prerna Saxena <saxenap....@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> From: Prerna Saxena <prerna.sax...@nutanix.com>
>> >>
>> >> This introduces the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
>> >>
>> >> If negotiated, client applications should send a u64 payload in
>> >> response to any message that contains the "need_response" bit set
>> >> on the message flags. Setting the payload to "zero" indicates the
>> >> command finished successfully. Likewise, setting it to "non-zero"
>> >> indicates an error.
>> >>
>> >> Currently implemented only for SET_MEM_TABLE.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna.sax...@nutanix.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> docs/specs/vhost-user.txt | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt b/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
>> >> index 777c49c..57df586 100644
>> >> --- a/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
>> >> +++ b/docs/specs/vhost-user.txt
>> >> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ consists of 3 header fields and a payload:
>> >> * Flags: 32-bit bit field:
>> >> - Lower 2 bits are the version (currently 0x01)
>> >> - Bit 2 is the reply flag - needs to be sent on each reply from the
>> >> slave
>> >> + - Bit 3 is the need_response flag - see
>> >> VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK for
>> >> + details.
>> >
>> >Why need_response and not "need reply"?
>>
>> (I’d already pointed this out earlier, but looks like I was possibly not
>> very clear.)
>> Before deciding on the right name for Bit 3, let us see the nomenclature for
>> Bit 2 above : "Bit 2 is the reply flag - needs to be sent on each reply from
>> the slave”.
>> So we already have a _reply_ flag in use. If the name Bit 3 as the
>> _need_reply_ flag, don’t you think it would be ultra-confusing ? I found it
>> confusing when I reviewed the documentation with this different term.
>> So I chose the name need_response with much deliberation — it conveys the
>> essence of what this flag means to achieve, but without adding to confusion.
>
>I don't see confusion, I think I agree with Marc André.
Allright. Posted a new series with the reworded terminology and updated (more
concise) documentation.
Regards,
Prerna
