Re: [virtio-dev] RE: [virtio-comment] [PATCH v14 04/11] transport-pci: Avoid first vq index reference

[Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:15:14 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 03:02:15PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 04:10:00 +0000
> > Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:
[..]
> > > Sure. All you wrote is correct.
> > >   
> > 
> > I'm happy we agree. All I say we may want to rewrite the 
> > 
> > "Each virtqueue is identified by a virtqueue index; virtqueue index
> > range is from 0 to 65535 inclusive."
> > as
> > "Each virtqueue is uniquely identified by a virtqueue index. The number
> > of supported virtqueues is device dependent, but can never exceed 65536.
> > Thus 16 bit is sufficient to represent virtqueue indexes. If the number
> > of virtqueues currently supported by some device is N, each of it is
> > virtqueues is uniquely identified by a single index from the range
> > [0..N-1]."  
> 
> Seems to be repeating same thing over and over.

Nod.

> This redundancy has cost, e.g. more places to change when we
> talk about admin queues.
> Yes it can not be any number 0 to 65535 but this kind of nitpicking
> belongs in conformance statements not in general description.
> 

I tend to agree. I would prefer to have it in some sort of conformance
statement, but I would also prefer to have it in exactly one place (and
not all over the place).

Regards,
Halil

[..]