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

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000@gmail.com>]

On 01/12/2017 12:50 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> 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.
fair enough
> Regards,
> Dario
Konrad, could you please define what that ASCII box
notation should look like?

Thank you,
Oleksandr

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