Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 10/04/2018 12:25, Halil Pasic wrote:
> All I did was to move the device normative to a better place. IMHO
> it's current place is obviously wrong.

I agree with that - but IMO you're now separating two related paragraphs.

> So, I read your comment as
> there should be a patch on top that further integrates the paragraphs
> made adjacent by this patch. Is that right?

It can even be the same patch, reworked to put something like this in
the normative text:

The driver MUST ensure the write to the \field{flags} field is performed
before the read of the Driver Event Suppression, in order to avoid
missing a notification from the device.

> About the normative statements. I hinted before that I don't really
> understand the role of normative statements in this specification. To
> be more precise, my naive understanding of their role is in conflict
> with the reality of the specification.
> 
> Can someone tell me what is supposed to go in a normative statements
> and what is supposed to go outside? Along with an estimate how good
> are we at adhering to those rules.

Anything that is declared "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY" constitutes a
normative statement.

Paolo