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

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

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 04:57:57PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> 
> On 12/30/2021 4:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 04:30:00PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > On 12/30/2021 4:27 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > > Not that I'm aware of. Who should open it ?
> > Please do if possible.
> > 
> Done.
> 
> Issue #128.

Note that at the moment the issue itself is empty, the only content is
in the comments.


> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 5:40 PM
> > > > > To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; stefanha@redhat.com; eperezma@redhat.com; Oren Duer <oren@nvidia.com>
> > > > > 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 <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}