On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> ping
>
> @Michael: Any feedback from you or should I prepare a non-rfc that
> deals with the other transports too.
Looks good to me pls go ahead.
> On 04/11/2018 12:11 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > While discussing XXXX using available and used buffer notifications
>
> s;XXXX;'https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02774.html
>
> > consistently for virqueue notifications (driver to device and vice versa
> > respectively) seemed like a good idea.
> >
> > It turned out surprisingly invasive however, and I find it necessary to
> > confirm, this is really the path we want to walk, before investing even more
> > time.
> >
> > This series limits itself to the core and to the ccw transport. It ain't
> > typical to the device types to make statements about notifications, but at
> > least net has some words on interrupts. I did not get these immediately so I've
> > left that out for now.
> >
> > I choose ccw as demonstrator on how to bridge the abstract with the transport
> > specific, because that is the transport I'm most familiar with. I do not expect
> > difficulties with the other ones.
> >
> >
> > Halil Pasic (3):
> > notifications: unify notifications wording in core
> > notifications:notifications as basic virtio facility
> > ccw: map common notifications terminology to ccw
> >
> > cl-os.tex | 2 +-
> > conformance.tex | 8 ++--
> > content.tex | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > packed-ring.tex | 59 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > split-ring.tex | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 5 files changed, 164 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
> >
