Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] rework notifications terminology

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

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> ping
> 
> @Michael: Any feedback from you or should I prepare a non-rfc that
> deals with the other transports too.

Looks good to me pls go ahead.

> On 04/11/2018 12:11 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > While discussing XXXX using available and used buffer notifications
> 
> s;XXXX;'https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org/msg02774.html
> 
> > consistently for virqueue notifications (driver to device and vice versa
> > respectively) seemed like a good idea.
> > 
> > It turned out surprisingly invasive however, and I find it necessary to
> > confirm, this is really the path we want to walk, before investing even more
> > time.
> > 
> > This series limits itself to the core and to the ccw transport. It ain't
> > typical to the device types to make statements about notifications, but at
> > least net has some words on interrupts. I did not get these immediately so I've
> > left that out for now.
> > 
> > I choose ccw as demonstrator on how to bridge the abstract with the transport
> > specific, because that is the transport I'm most familiar with. I do not expect
> > difficulties with the other ones.
> > 
> > 
> > Halil Pasic (3):
> >    notifications: unify notifications wording in core
> >    notifications:notifications as basic virtio facility
> >    ccw: map common notifications terminology to ccw
> > 
> >   cl-os.tex       |    2 +-
> >   conformance.tex |    8 ++--
> >   content.tex     |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >   packed-ring.tex |   59 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >   split-ring.tex  |   72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >   5 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >