On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:00:32PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM > > > > > 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. > > > I considered that before. > In its current form, there is very less back-n-forth jump. > This is because admin chapter mostly enumerates the opcode. > > And PCI legacy chapter talks about rest of the theory and command details. > > When/if we have more transports for this, probably a generic place will be > suitable. > > Moving now to admin will surely have more back-n-forth as it needs to talk > about PCI part and that PCI part will reside in PCI section.
well the point is that it's *back" not *forth*. IOW add the command description in admin chapter, make it point to legacy description in pci chapter which reader has already read. > > > > 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. > > > Yes good one. Will use. right and my point is try to word all of it like this. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
