From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 09:27:07 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix reserved Feature bits numbering Message-ID: <20211230092641-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20210801124527.35655-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> <87sfzhx0h3.fsf@redhat.com> <874kbpvkpn.fsf@redhat.com> <20210816103945-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline To: Max Gurtovoy Cc: Cornelia Huck , "virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" , "stefanha@redhat.com" , "eperezma@redhat.com" , Oren Duer , Parav Pandit List-ID: On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 02:24:46PM +0000, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > Hi MST/Cornelia, > Can you please update on the status of this patch ? > It's open for few months and I'm wondering if there is something wrong with it ? Hmm. Is there a git issue for this? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael S. Tsirkin > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:40 PM > To: Cornelia Huck > Cc: Max Gurtovoy ; virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; stefanha@redhat.com; eperezma@redhat.com; Oren Duer > Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix reserved Feature bits numbering > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:48:36AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12 2021, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > On 8/10/2021 9:44 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > >> On Sun, Aug 01 2021, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > >> > > >>> This should have been updated during VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA > > >>> and VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA standartization. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy > > >>> --- > > >>> content.tex | 4 ++-- > > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index 5c70a3c..e9a32fa > > >>> 100644 > > >>> --- a/content.tex > > >>> +++ b/content.tex > > >>> @@ -99,10 +99,10 @@ \section{Feature Bits}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature B > > >>> \begin{description} > > >>> \item[0 to 23] Feature bits for the specific device type > > >>> > > >>> -\item[24 to 37] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue > > >>> and > > >>> +\item[24 to 39] Feature bits reserved for extensions to the queue > > >>> +and > > >>> feature negotiation mechanisms > > >> I'm wondering whether we should do s/reserved/used/ here? > > > > > > I'm just fixing a bug here. You can take this patch and create > > > another one with the above suggestion on top. > > > > > > I'm ok with your suggestion. > > > > So... any opinions on whether this should get a proper vote? [I won't > > be able to handle that in the next weeks. Michael?] > > > Feature bit numbering is an important enough matter that I'd say let's have an issue for this please, and I will do a ballot. > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> -\item[38 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions. > > >>> +\item[40 and above] Feature bits reserved for future extensions. > > >>> \end{description} > > >>> > > >>> \begin{note}