Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/kbdif: update protocol documentation

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1442 bytes --]

On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 20:40 +0200, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 07:35 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > 
> > It's indeed a repetition, but a good one, IMO: it helps the reader,
> > as
> > she won't have to go back to figure out how big the struct was, how
> > the
> > macro was call and to what value it was defined).
> I am still not convinced that we should put it.
> Probably we can go the way other RFCs do, like TCP [1], 802.11 [2]
> etc:
> those do not define any reserved fields at the bottom of structures,
> (which are effectively padding?) but are limited to only those fields
> which are defined.
>
In principle, I like the idea of following the example of those RFCs.
However, I'd say that what we should value most is consistency within
our own source tree.

But, TBH, there aren't many binary diagram already committed in
include/public/io, so it's hard to tell.

FWIW, I still think that providing a clue to the reader about the size
--even if already specified somewhere else-- would be beneficial, but
it's a rather minor thing, and I certainly can leave with whatever you
and the maintainer(s) agree upon.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel