Re: [PATCH v8 2/9] admin: introduce device group and related concepts

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 22 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 01:11:19PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 20 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > +\item[Member device]
>> > +        a device within a group. Owner device itself is not
>> 
>> s/Owner/The owner/
>> 
>> > +	a member of the group. In the future it is envisoned that
>> > +	new group types may be introduced where the owner
>> > +	device is a member of the group.
>> 
>> So, shouldn't it rather be: "Whether the owner device itself is a member
>> of the group depends on the type of the group." ?
>> Or do we want to
>> prefer the owner _not_ being a member of the group?
>
> Maybe I will drop this "In the future" thing. We'll cross that bridge
> when we get to it.

Ok, I think we can expand this later, if needed.

>
>> > +\item[Member identifier]
>> > +        each member has this identifier, unique within the group
>> > +	and used to address it through the owner device.
>> > +\item[Group type identifier]
>> > +	specifies what kind of member devices there are in a
>> > +	group, how is the member identifier interpreted
>> 
>> "how the member indentifier is interpreted, ..."
>> 
>> > +	and what kind of control does the owner have.
>> 
>> s/does the owner have/the owner has/
>> 
>> > +	At the moment, a given owner can control
>> > +	a single group of a given type, thus the type and
>> > +	the owner together identify the group.
>> > +	It is envisioned that this last restriction might be relaxed in the future,
>> > +	with multiple groups of the same type for a given owner.
>> 
>> Hm...
>> 
>> "A given owner may control a single group of a given type (which means
>> that the type and the owner together identify the group), or multiple
>> groups of the same type. Currently, only a single group per owner is
>> supported." ?
>> 
>> Basically, I'd prefer if we spelled out what is possible in general, and
>> then add a comment that only a subset of the possibilities is currently
>> implemented.
>
> I feel I went too broad here. Let's just drop the "It is envisioned"
> for now.

Ok, let's drop the "At the moment" prefix as well :)