On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:15:14 -0400 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 03:02:15PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 04:10:00 +0000 > > Parav Pandit <[email protected]> wrote: [..] > > > Sure. All you wrote is correct. > > > > > > > I'm happy we agree. All I say we may want to rewrite the > > > > "Each virtqueue is identified by a virtqueue index; virtqueue index > > range is from 0 to 65535 inclusive." > > as > > "Each virtqueue is uniquely identified by a virtqueue index. The number > > of supported virtqueues is device dependent, but can never exceed 65536. > > Thus 16 bit is sufficient to represent virtqueue indexes. If the number > > of virtqueues currently supported by some device is N, each of it is > > virtqueues is uniquely identified by a single index from the range > > [0..N-1]." > > Seems to be repeating same thing over and over. Nod. > This redundancy has cost, e.g. more places to change when we > talk about admin queues. > Yes it can not be any number 0 to 65535 but this kind of nitpicking > belongs in conformance statements not in general description. > I tend to agree. I would prefer to have it in some sort of conformance statement, but I would also prefer to have it in exactly one place (and not all over the place). Regards, Halil [..] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
