Re: [virtio-dev] Preferred layout for request/response structs

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 09:30:30PM +0900, Keiichi Watanabe wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> Thank you for your advice!
> 
> Your comments totally make sense. We should keep structs simple and I
> should have thought the spec and implementation separately.
> tl;dr: I feel comfortable with the following design after rethinking:
> 
> struct virtio_video_resource_queue {
>   le32 virtio_video_cmd_type type; /* Must be an enum variant
> VIRTIO_VIDEO_CMD_TYPE_RESOURCE_QUEUE */
>   le32 queue_type;
>   ...
> };
> struct virtio_video_resource_queue_resp {
>   le32 virtio_video_resp_type type; /* Must be an enum variant that
> represents the result of the command; Success or error type */
>   ...
> };
> 
> Regarding the decoding problem in a device, we should define another
> set of structs when implementing the device if it is needed.
> Let me reply to your comments inline and explain the reason of my thought.

This and your replies to my comments sounds good.  Thanks!

Stefan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature