RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] virtio-net: Describe dev cfg fields read only

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:52 PM
> 
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:50:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:42 PM
> > > >
> > > > What does "bits (for the driver)" mean? It made sense together
> > > > with "read-only", but I would drop "(for the driver)" as well.
> > >
> > > Ouch Parav are you making search and replace changes without reading
> > > the result? Pls don't.
> > >
> > It was wrong to keep the "for the driver".
> > I will fix this.
> >
> > >
> > > > >  VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP and VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE.
> > > > >
> > > > >  \begin{lstlisting}
> > > > > @@ -167,14 +167,14 @@ \subsection{Device configuration
> > > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device
> > > > >  #define VIRTIO_NET_S_ANNOUNCE    2
> > > > >  \end{lstlisting}
> > > > >
> > > > > -The following driver-read-only field,
> > > > > \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} only exists if
> > > > > +The following field, \field{max_virtqueue_pairs} only exists if
> > > > >  VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ or VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS is set. This field
> > > > > specifies the maximum number  of each of transmit and receive
> > > > > virtqueues (receiveq1\ldots receiveqN  and transmitq1\ldots
> > > > > transmitqN
> > > > > respectively) that can be configured once at least one of these
> > > > > features  is
> > > negotiated.
> > > > >
> > > > > -The following driver-read-only field, \field{mtu} only exists
> > > > > if -VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum
> > > > > MTU for the driver to
> > > > > +The following field, \field{mtu} only exists if
> > > > > +VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU
> > > > > +for the driver to
> > > > >  use.
> > > > >
> > > > >  The following two fields, \field{speed} and \field{duplex},
> > > > > only @@
> > > > > -261,6 +261,8 @@ \subsection{Device configuration
> > > > > layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Network Device
> > > > >
> > > > >  \drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration
> > > > > layout}{Device Types / Network Device / Device configuration
> > > > > layout}
> > > > >
> > > > > +All the device configuration fields are read-only for the driver.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if this makes a good normative clause, I would rather
> > > > give the driver something actionable:
> > > >
> > > > "A driver SHOULD NOT try to write to any of the device
> > > > configuration fields."
> > >
> > > Agree it's not a normative statement as is.
> > > MUST NOT actually - they were always read only.
> > > And no need to "try" just don't write period.
> > >
> > Saying driver must not write it, doesn't make it read only for the device.
> 
> no but this is not what your patch said either. It's read only for the driver.
> 
It is read-only for the driver because the device doesn't treat them as writable.
Do you mean it should be better written as,

These fields are read-only for the driver, hence any writes by the driver to it will be ignored by the device.

?

> > Hence, it should be mentioned as read-only fields, so when the driver writes
> something to read-only fields, it can be considered as undefined behavior on
> such fields.
> >
> 
> In the description not in the normative statements. normative sections just tell
> driver what it must and must not do, in the standard RFC terms.
> 
Got it.
I will shift them as read-only in the description section.
And normative in the device and driver section.
Device section:
Any writes to config space fields is ignored by the device, because these are read-only fields for the driver.

Driver section:
Driver must not write to read-only fields.