On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 03:16:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:04 AM > > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM > > > > > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise > > > > > for vote in coming days to be part of 1.3 in few days as we have > > > > > more than 3 > > > > weeks to sort out non-ABI language part. > > > > > > > > I think there's a bunch of work to tighten wording in v4, don't > > > > believe it is ready for vote yet. > > > 3rd patch has the conformance section. > > > Rest of the legacy interface semantics are just same as today. > > > We are not fixing the legacy interface itself, so not sure what to tighten > > specifically. > > > > I'll do a proper review after the forum. Generally lots of small things. > > Went > > looking just to give you a couple of > > examples: > > too many mentions of VFs and PFs. > > text should talk about owner and member. Minimise > > mention of VFs to make it easier to extend to > > different group types. > > > True but most additions are in PCI transport chapter. > But will change to member and owner.
Another thing that bothers me is that it references admin commands that are defined later in the spec. I don't like it that we are making the reader jump back and forth ... Maybe it's better to put this in the admin command chapter. > > another example: > > +The PCI VF device SHOULD NOT expose PCI BAR 0 when it prefers to > > support > > > > VFs don't expose BARs at all. PF exposes VF BARs in SRIOV capability. > > > Yes, it is exposed by PF, the wording of "PCI VF device exposing" is not > right. > I will reword it. So here's an example wording, I don't insist on it exactly but the point is to show how we should use spec terminology whereever possible: If an owner of an SRIOV group supports all of VIRTIO_ADMIN_CMD_LCC_REG_WRITE, VIRTIO_ADMIN_CMD_LCC_REG_READ .... then it SHOULD NOT expose VF BAR0 (of non 0 size) as part of its SRIOV capability; this is to facilitate emulating IO BAR0 for the legacy interface in software. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
