Re: [virtio] [PATCH] init: sort status bits

[Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:02:59 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> Status bit order is inconsistent: they are neither in increasing
> order nor in the order they are likely to be used.
> 
> The second approach seems more useful since there aren't
> that many bits, so the numerical order does not help much.
> 
> A typical order of use would be:
> 
> ACKNOWLEDGE
> DRIVER
> then either FAILED or FEATURES_OK
> then either FAILED or DRIVER_OK
> then DEVICE_NEEDS_RESET (if device detects an error)
> 
> Sort the bits accordingly.
> 
> Reported-by: Kevin Lo <kevlo@kevlo.org>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> ---
>  content.tex | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Sounds reasonable.

Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>