[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] [PATCH 4/5] packed-ring: reposition drivernormative on driver notifications
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]