[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v3] ACCESS_PLATFORM/ORDER_PLATFORM
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:09:04 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:01:08 -0500 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 01:24:32PM +0100, Jens Freimann wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:03:37PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > + If this feature bit is negotiated, the ordering in effect for any > > > > + memory accesses by the driver that need to be ordered in a specific way > > > > + with respect to accesses by the device is the one suitable for devices > > > > + described by the platform. > > > > > > I had to read this sentence several times. How about: "Some memory > > > accesses by the driver need to be ordered in a specific way with > > > respect to accesses by the device. If this feature bit is negotiated, > > > these accesses need to match the ordering requirements of devices as > > > described for the platform." > > > > > > In any case: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> > > > > I think we can make this change under the trivial changes rule, thanks! > > I agree, and I think that Jens' wording is easier to read. > I find both of these quite tricky. Yet I consider both versions are good enough.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]