On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:22:58 +1030
Rusty Russell <> wrote:
> Thomas Huth <> writes:
> > Here's my feedback for Virtio draft 01, chapter 4:
> > Page 36:
> >
> > - "Bit numbers start at the left"
> > => I'd make this sentence more explicit, e.g.:
> > "Bit numbers start at the left, i.e. the most significant bit in the
> > first byte is assigned the bit number 0."
>
> Cornelia, is this correct?
Looks OK.
>
> > Page 36 / Notification via Adapter I/O Interrupts:
> >
> > - "The guest-provided summary indicator is also set."
> > => What value is set in the summary indicator byte? 0x01? 0x80? 0xff?
> > It maybe does not matter, since any non-zero value could be used, but
> > it might help to avoid confusion if you specify the exact value here.
>
> Punting this to Cornelia too...
In practice, 0 vs. !0 should be enough, as we use the summary-indicator
only to signal that a bit in the matching indicator area has been set
(unlike PCI, which uses an indicator area per bit). But let's specify
what our code does, just to avoid confusion:
"The guest-provided summary indicator is set to 0x01."
>
> > Page 37 / Early printk for Virtio Consoles
> >
> > - Is this early print really part of virtio-ccw? If yes, I think you
> > should also describe the register usage here.
>
> Good catch.
Well, I'd probably drop it. It is more a toleration for some code that
never went upstream; the last thing we want is more users of this
interface.
