[virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v11 03/10] admin: introduce group administration commands

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1786 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 11:03:16AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This introduces a general structure for group administration commands,
> used to control device groups through their owner.
> 
> Following patches will introduce specific commands and an interface for
> submitting these commands to the owner.
> 
> Note that the commands are focused on controlling device groups:
> this is why group related fields are in the generic part of
> the structure.
> Without this the admin vq would become a "whatever" vq which does not do
> anything specific at all, just a general transport like thing.
> I feel going this way opens the design space to the point where
> we no longer know what belongs in e.g. config space
> what in the control q and what in the admin q.
> As it is, whatever deals with groups is in the admin q; other
> things not in the admin q.
> 
> There are specific exceptions such as query but that's an exception that
> proves the rule ;)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> changes since v10:
> 	explain the role of status vs status_qualifier, addresses
> 		multiple comments
> 	add more status values and appropriate qualifiers,
> 		as suggested by Parav
> 	clarify reserved command opcodes as suggested by Stefan
> 	better formatting for ranges, comment by Jiri
> 	make sure command-specific-data is a multiple of qword,
> 	so things are aligned, suggested by Jiri
> 	add Q_OK qualifier for success
> ---
>  admin.tex        | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  introduction.tex |   3 ++
>  2 files changed, 124 insertions(+)

My thoughts on status/status_qualifier haven't changed, but it's a
question of taste:

Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]