RE: [RFC v3] virtio-crypto specification

["Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>]

Hi Michael,

> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:mst@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [RFC v3] virtio-crypto specification
> 
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:37:13AM +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is the specification (version 3) about a new virtio crypto device.
> >
> > Changes from v2:
> >  - Reserve virtio device ID 20 for crypto device. [Cornelia]
> >  - Drop all feature bits, those capabilities are offered by the device all the
> time.  [Stefan & Cornelia]
> >  - Add a new section 1.4.2 for driver requirements. [Stefan]
> >  - Use definite type definition instead of enum type in some structure.
> [Stefan]
> 
> In fact this is not how rest of spec does this:
> 
> \begin{lstlisting}
> struct virtio_net_hdr {
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM    1
>         u8 flags;
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_NONE        0
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4       1
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_UDP         3
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6       4
> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_ECN      0x80
>         u8 gso_type;
>         le16 hdr_len;
>         le16 gso_size;
>         le16 csum_start;
>         le16 csum_offset;
>         le16 num_buffers;
> };
> \end{lstlisting}
> 
> the advantage is that field width is explicit.
> 
OK, I get it. Thank you!

Regards,
-Gonglei