Re: [virtio-comment] Re: Chained VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT (again!)

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

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:13:44PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:14:52PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> 
> >>         I was reading through the spec, and realized that it doesn't
> >> explicitly ban chaining of indirect descriptors.  After virtio-15, it
> >> says:
> >> 
> >>    An indirect descriptor without next field
> >>    (with flags&VRING_DESC_F_NEXT off) signals the end of the descriptor.
> >> 
> >> This *implies* that there can't be a "next" after an indirect, but
> >> doesn't explicitly say that a driver shouldn't do that.  That was the
> >> intent, so I suggest adding to 2.4.5.3.1 Driver Requirements: Indirect
> >> Descriptors:
> >> 
> >>         The driver MUST NOT set the VIRTQ_DESC_F_NEXT flag on a
> >>         descriptor with the VIRTQ_DESC_F_INDIRECT flag set.
> >
> > I agree, explicit is good.
> > Will you open an issue for that?
> 
> Yep, I'll post a patch and then open an issue linking to it.

OK, there are issues, great, but pls note they aren't open yet.
When you feel there was sufficient time for review on
the mailing list, please set "Fix Versions" and open them,
so we can start ballots.

Also, was this reported by yourself?
Please remember to set environment to list name and
email of the reporter.

Thanks!

-- 
MST