Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] content: Document balloon feature free page hints

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:28:34 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:13:55AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:11:15 -0700
> > Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:28 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > On 04.09.20 18:56, Alexander Duyck wrote:    
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:20 AM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:    
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 25.08.20 16:45, Alexander Duyck wrote:    
> >   
> > > > >>> @@ -5042,13 +5049,17 @@ \subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Memory Balloon Device / Featu
> > > > >>>  VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST is not negotiated.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>  \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Memory Balloon Device / Device configuration layout}
> > > > >>> -  Both fields of this configuration
> > > > >>> -  are always available.
> > > > >>> +  \field{num_pages} and \field{actual} are always available.
> > > > >>> +
> > > > >>> +  \field{free_page_hint_cmd_id} is available if
> > > > >>> +    VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated and is read-only by
> > > > >>> +    the driver.    
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This reads at least to me like "...if VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT
> > > > >> ... is read-only by the driver". I suspect you rather meant
> > > > >> "free_page_hint_cmd_id is read-only...". Maybe split up into two sentences?    
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the intention is:
> > > > > 1. free_page_hint_cmd_id is only available if
> > > > > VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated
> > > > > 2. free_page_hint_cmd_id is read only by the driver
> > > > >
> > > > > If needed I suppose we could break it up by splitting it into two
> > > > > sentences, or adding "the field" after the "and".
> > > > >    
> > > >
> > > > I'm fine with both options but please adjust this - on top (Michael just
> > > > opened the voting for this version again due to the formal typo in round 1).
> > > >
> > > > Jan    
> > > 
> > > Since the patch set is being voted on is there a preferred method for
> > > making this sort of update? I'm just wondering if I should do an
> > > additional incremental patch, just submit a replacement for this
> > > patch, or make the change and resubmit the entire patch set?  
> > 
> > I think doing an additional patch on top and then doing another vote on
> > that is the best way to handle this. (Or maybe it is minor enough to
> > simply merge the incremental patch?)  
> 
> yes, this sounds good to me

Which one of the options, actually? I'd be happy to merge a proper
patch on top (which I'd consider a trivial fix.)