Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] transport-pci: Introduce legacy registers access using AQ

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 02:53:28PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 10:44 AM
> > > Since this ABI reflects what we agree on, I would want to raise for
> > > vote in coming days to be part of 1.3 in few days as we have more than 3
> > weeks to sort out non-ABI language part.
> > 
> > I think there's a bunch of work to tighten wording in v4, don't believe it is ready
> > for vote yet. 
> 3rd patch has the conformance section.
> Rest of the legacy interface semantics are just same as today.
> We are not fixing the legacy interface itself, so not sure what to tighten specifically.

I'll do a proper review after the forum. Generally
lots of small things. Went looking just to give you a couple of
examples:
	  too many mentions of VFs and PFs.
	  text should talk about owner and member. Minimise
	  mention of VFs to make it easier to extend to
	  different group types.

another example:
	+The PCI VF device SHOULD NOT expose PCI BAR 0 when it prefers to support

VFs don't expose BARs at all. PF exposes VF BARs in SRIOV capability.



> > Unfortunately I need to get ready for travel and then travel for the
> > kvm forum, during this time I will try but I can't promise when I will be able to
> > go over it in detail and send comments. Back June 20.
> 
> Ok. that will be really helpful. I will revise v5 as soon as you and others have comments.
> 
> Total line of spec line are < 200 lines including the 1st clean patch.
> And changelog anyway precisely captures what changed so should not be too many reviews to me.