Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix reserved Feature bits numbering

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 10:48:36AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12 2021, Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 8/10/2021 9:44 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 01 2021, Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This should have been updated during VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA and
> >>> VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA standartization.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   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}