Re: [PATCH V2] virtio-transport: Clarify requirements

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jan 30 2024, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> The virtio documentation currently doesn't define any generic
> requirements that are applicable to all transports. They can be useful
> while adding support for a new transport.
>
> This commit tries to define the same.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> V1->V2:
> - Lot of changes after discussions with Alex and Cornelia.
> - Almost a rewrite of the first commit.
> - Add Transport normative sections.
>
>  commands.tex    |  1 +
>  conformance.tex | 14 +++++++++
>  content.tex     | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/commands.tex b/commands.tex
> index 25ea8ee3bc78..692ef0833a88 100644
> --- a/commands.tex
> +++ b/commands.tex
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>  \newcommand{\field}[1]{\emph{#1}}
>  
>  % Mark a normative section (driver or device)

Nit: driver, device, or transport

> +\newcommand{\transportnormative}[3]{#1{Transport Requirements: #2}\label{transportnormative:#3}}
>  \newcommand{\drivernormative}[3]{#1{Driver Requirements: #2}\label{drivernormative:#3}}
>  \newcommand{\devicenormative}[3]{#1{Device Requirements: #2}\label{devicenormative:#3}}
>  \newcounter{clausecounter}
> diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex
> index dc00e84e75ae..9bb1c9e2f6ec 100644
> --- a/conformance.tex
> +++ b/conformance.tex
> @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ \section{Conformance Targets}\label{sec:Conformance / Conformance Targets}
>  
>  Conformance targets:
>  \begin{description}
> +\item[Transport] A transport MUST conform to following conformance clauses:

Maybe "MUST conform to one conformance clause"?

> +  \begin{itemize}
> +    \item Clause \ref{sec:Conformance / Transport Conformance}.
> +  \end{itemize}
>  \item[Driver] A driver MUST conform to four conformance clauses:
>    \begin{itemize}
>      \item Clause \ref{sec:Conformance / Driver Conformance}.

(...)

Apart from the nits above, this looks good to me.

I'd be in favour of initiating a vote for this, after the OASIS
infrastructure migragion has completed and we have dealt with any
fallout from that... that would probably mean March :(

(Oh, and this should probably go to virtio-comment as well.)

[Apologies for not reviewing earlier, but I'm struggling to keep afloat,
and the OASIS infrastructure saga did not exactly help...]