RE: [PATCH v10] virtio-net: support the virtqueue coalescing moderation

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 6:35 PM
> > > +\begin{itemize}
> > > +\item For commands VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_TX_SET and
> > > VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_RX_SET, \field{max_usecs}
> > > +      and \field{max_packets} are write-only for a driver.
> > > +\item For the command VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_SET,
> > > +\field{vqn},
> > > \field{reserved}, \field{max_usecs}
> > > +      and \field{max_packets} are write-only for a driver.
> > > +\item For the command VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_GET,
> \field{vqn}
> > > and \field{reserved} are write-only
> > > +      for a driver, and, \field{max_usecs} and \field{max_packets}
> > > + are read-only
> > > for the driver.
> > > +\end{itemize}
> > > +
> > Maybe I missed the conversation while I was sick.
> > I remember we discussed that instead of mentioning each individual field,
> better to describe the whole structure being read-only or write-only.
> 
> we can't, for GET part is RO part is WO.
> 
I am talking about the struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal.
This is RO for GET and WO for SET.
The text above can say struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal is RO or WO without dissecting its individual fields.

> > > +\begin{note}
> > > +The behavior of the device in response to these commands is best-effort:
> > > +the device may generate notifications more or less frequently than
> specified.
> > > +\end{note}
> > > +
> > Michael,
> > Why this should be a note? Shouldn't it be a normative line in the device
> requirements?
> 
> the second part with
> "may" should be upper case and used in a normative section, true.
> We can also have a note with the best-effort part, just avoid "may".
> 
Ok. In that case, just the normative line is good enough, as it avoids duplication.

Sorry for the late response, as returning back from travel and sickness.