On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:50:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:42 PM
> > >
> > > What does "bits (for the driver)" mean? It made sense together with
> > > "read-only", but I would drop "(for the driver)" as well.
> >
> > Ouch Parav are you making search and replace changes without reading the
> > result? Pls don't.
> >
> It was wrong to keep the "for the driver".
> I will fix this.
>
> >
> > > > VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP and VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE.
> > > >
> > > > \begin{lstlisting}
> > > > @@ -167,14 +167,14 @@ \subsection{Device configuration
> > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device
> > > > #define VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE 2
> > > > \end{lstlisting}
> > > >
> > > > -The following driver-read-only field, \field{max_virtqueue_pairs}
> > > > only exists if
> > > > +The following field, \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} only exists if
> > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ or VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS is set. This field specifies
> > > > the maximum number of each of transmit and receive virtqueues
> > > > (receiveq1\ldots receiveqN and transmitq1\ldots transmitqN
> > > > respectively) that can be configured once at least one of these
> > > > features is
> > negotiated.
> > > >
> > > > -The following driver-read-only field, \field{mtu} only exists if
> > > > -VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for
> > > > the driver to
> > > > +The following field, \field{mtu} only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is
> > > > +set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the driver to
> > > > use.
> > > >
> > > > The following two fields, \field{speed} and \field{duplex}, only @@
> > > > -261,6 +261,8 @@ \subsection{Device configuration
> > > > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device
> > > >
> > > > \drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration
> > > > layout}{Device Types / Network Device / Device configuration layout}
> > > >
> > > > +All the device configuration fields are read-only for the driver.
> > >
> > > Not sure if this makes a good normative clause, I would rather give
> > > the driver something actionable:
> > >
> > > "A driver SHOULD NOT try to write to any of the device configuration
> > > fields."
> >
> > Agree it's not a normative statement as is.
> > MUST NOT actually - they were always read only.
> > And no need to "try" just don't write period.
> >
> Saying driver must not write it, doesn't make it read only for the device.
no but this is not what your patch said either. It's read only for the
driver.
> Hence, it should be mentioned as read-only fields, so when the driver writes
> something to read-only fields, it can be considered as undefined behavior on
> such fields.
>
In the description not in the normative statements. normative sections
just tell driver what it must and must not do, in the standard RFC
terms.
> > > > +
> > > > A driver SHOULD negotiate VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC if the device offers it.
> > > > If the driver negotiates the VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC feature, the driver
> > > > MUST set the physical address of the NIC to \field{mac}.
> > > > Otherwise, it SHOULD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
