From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41483) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akoAr-0004t7-84 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:34:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akoAo-0004w8-28 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:34:49 -0400 Received: from barbershop.grep.be ([89.106.240.122]:41737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1akoAn-0004w4-Si for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:34:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:34:37 +0200 From: Wouter Verhelst Message-ID: <20160329073437.GD22386@grep.be> References: <1459161798-32120-1-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <1459161798-32120-4-git-send-email-den@openvz.org> <56F93577.5000008@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56F93577.5000008@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Nbd] [PATCH 3/3] NBD proto: add "Command flags" section List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net, "Denis V. Lunev" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Pavel Borzenkov On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:45:27AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/28/2016 04:43 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote: > > From: Pavel Borzenkov > > > > Add separate "Command flags" section to make it clear which flags are > > currently defined by the protocol. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Borzenkov > > Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan > > Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev > > CC: Wouter Verhelst > > CC: Eric Blake > > CC: Alex Bligh > > --- > > doc/proto.md | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/proto.md b/doc/proto.md > > index 036d6d9..662f741 100644 > > --- a/doc/proto.md > > +++ b/doc/proto.md > > @@ -485,6 +485,16 @@ The following request types exist: > > Currently one such message is known: `NBD_CMD_CACHE`, with type set to > > 5, implemented by xnbd. > > > > +#### Command flags > > + > > +This field of 16 bits is sent by the client with every request and provides > > +additional information to the server to execute the command. Refer to > > +aforementioned "Request types" section for information about the flags > > Maybe: > > s/aforementioned "Request types" section/the "Request types" section above/ > > > +supported by particular commands. > > + > > +- bit 0, `NBD_CMD_FLAG_FUA`; should be set to 1 if the client requires > > + "Force Unit Access" mode of operation > > Trailing dot? Should you also mention which command(s) it is valid > with? (NBD_CMD_WRITE for now, until other extension commands are added) > It might also be worth mentioning that the flag should not be sent > unless export flags included NBD_FLAG_SEND_FUA. > > > + > > #### Error values > > > > The error values are used for the error field in the reply message. Yes, I agree that these are all (typographical, but still) improvements. If you can update with that, I'll happily apply that. Regards, -- < ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules, and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too. -- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12