Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v8 1/3] content: Document balloon feature free page hints

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:11:15 -0700
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:28 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 04.09.20 18:56, Alexander Duyck wrote:  
> > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:20 AM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> On 25.08.20 16:45, Alexander Duyck wrote:  

> > >>> @@ -5042,13 +5049,17 @@ \subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Memory Balloon Device / Featu
> > >>>  VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_MUST_TELL_HOST is not negotiated.
> > >>>
> > >>>  \subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Memory Balloon Device / Device configuration layout}
> > >>> -  Both fields of this configuration
> > >>> -  are always available.
> > >>> +  \field{num_pages} and \field{actual} are always available.
> > >>> +
> > >>> +  \field{free_page_hint_cmd_id} is available if
> > >>> +    VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated and is read-only by
> > >>> +    the driver.  
> > >>
> > >> This reads at least to me like "...if VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT
> > >> ... is read-only by the driver". I suspect you rather meant
> > >> "free_page_hint_cmd_id is read-only...". Maybe split up into two sentences?  
> > >
> > > Yes, the intention is:
> > > 1. free_page_hint_cmd_id is only available if
> > > VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_FREE_PAGE_HINT has been negotiated
> > > 2. free_page_hint_cmd_id is read only by the driver
> > >
> > > If needed I suppose we could break it up by splitting it into two
> > > sentences, or adding "the field" after the "and".
> > >  
> >
> > I'm fine with both options but please adjust this - on top (Michael just
> > opened the voting for this version again due to the formal typo in round 1).
> >
> > Jan  
> 
> Since the patch set is being voted on is there a preferred method for
> making this sort of update? I'm just wondering if I should do an
> additional incremental patch, just submit a replacement for this
> patch, or make the change and resubmit the entire patch set?

I think doing an additional patch on top and then doing another vote on
that is the best way to handle this. (Or maybe it is minor enough to
simply merge the incremental patch?)