Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] admin: Add group member legacy register access commands

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

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 04:45:23PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 12:40 PM
> > > >
> > > > we can just say "the legacy interface of member devices"
> > > >
> > > What is the harm in telling explicitly what is currently supported, specially
> > when it theory of operation description section.
> > 
> > The harm is that
> > - making things generic on the 1st try is the only stick we have
> >   as contributors always push to make their solutions as
> >   specific to their needs as possible
> > - people are lazy and they will copy text and then I get to repeat this argument
> > all over again.
> >
> 
> The "legacy interface of member device" is a vague term. As implementer, reader I don't understand what that means.
> The commands clearly communicate the scope.

Add this as an example then.

> > If you want to also have a type specific text, be my guest "specifically, for an
> > SRIOV type" ....
> > 
> SRIOV in generic section doesn't make sense. It is covered in the pci transport section.

When it's convenient to you you argue that it's clearer, when it's not
you want it generic.  Just mention it quickly and link to the specific
text in the new section.

Look the only reason I personally am even entertaining this over
objections of several members is that this stuff has the potentional to
be well contained.  That's the only argument, otherwise individual
features like _F_LEGACY_MAC would win hands down - this is how we always
did it.  If you are intent on spreading this all over the spec
we'll need to rethink the whole approach.

> > 
> > > > > using following listed
> > > >
> > > > using the following
> > > >
> > > > > +administrative commands:
> > > >
> > > > administration not administrative
> > > >
> > > Ack.