[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 04/20/2018 05:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:My concern (regarding the whole spec) is the completeness and self the containment of it's normative portion -- I'm not sure if either is pursued rigorously.No it isn't, and the reason is we do not want to bring the development to a complete halt :). Our charter is Enhancing the performance of virtual devices by standardizing key features of the VIRTIO (Virtual I/O) Device Specification Our job is thus to facilitate development by standardizing where it's helpful. If we start asking people to write out a formal spec for any tiny change before they can release code, development will stop and performance will suffer. And it's a balance: it should be clear what is going on, and if people can write it rigorously without confusing matters, it is helpful. But we don't want something like e.g. the C or C++ language spec, where you can read all of it and still have no idea how to use it.
For instance take 'Supplying Buffers to The Device' either for split or for packed. The algorithms described there aren't constituting a normative section. Do you think these can be inferred from the normative sections?No but it's ok for normative sections to refer to the non-normative ones.
Was, kind of, the point I tried to make. I've (for myself) given up on these ideals. That's why I did not bother to think about isn't that sentence normative section material. And I don't intend to clean up normative vs non-normative. Anyway, it is good to have it spelled out what is the objective of this document, and what is not. I will continue to try to improve the specification, in accordance to that -- and avoid hanging myself up on what is not considered a primary objective. Many thanks! Regards, Halil