Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [RFC PATCH v1] virtio-vsock: use C style defines for constants

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:18:34AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> 
> On 22.03.2021 17:30, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:52:22AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:37:59AM +0300, Arseny Krasnov wrote:
> >>>> @@ -227,6 +226,11 @@ \subsubsection{Stream Sockets}\label{sec:Device Types / Socket Device / Device O
> >>>>  hints are permanent once sent and successive packets with bits clear do not
> >>>>  reset them.
> >>>>  
> >>>> +\begin{lstlisting}
> >>>> +#define VIRTIO_VSOCK_SHUTDOWN_RECEIVE_BIT 0
> >>>> +#define VIRTIO_VSOCK_SHUTDOWN_SEND_BIT    1
> >>>> +\end{lstlisting}
> >>> The spec has no other _BIT constants.
> >> True. Sometimes there's an _F_ somewhere there instead.
> > You're right, I missed the virtio-net bit constants:
> >
> >   #define VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4 7
> >
> > Compared to:
> >
> >   #define VIRTQ_DESC_F_AVAIL     (1 << 7)
> >
> > or
> >
> >   #define VIRTQ_DESC_F_WRITE     2
> >
> > It's an inconsistent mix :). Hard to tell them apart when they aren't
> > bitmask constants with '<<'.
> >
> > Can we use '<<' for clarity on new constants?
> 
> So for bit constants, i can use:
> 
> #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_SHUTDOWN_RECEIVE (1 << 0)
> #define VIRTIO_VSOCK_SHUTDOWN_SEND    (1 << 1)
> 
> for this case and all other next cases, when i'll add SEQPACKET
> description in spec?

Personally I think that's clearest. Michael pointed out that the spec is
not consistent though, so I won't complain if you prefer to keep the
_BIT numbering.

Stefan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature