virtio — archive

[PATCH v8 0/9] Introduce device group and device management

From: Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:26:00 -0000

On Tue, Nov 22 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 01:11:19PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 20 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > +\item[Member device] >> > + a device within a group. Owner device itself is not >> >> s/Owner/The owner/ >> >> > + a member of the group. In the future it is envisoned that >> > + new group types may be introduced where the owner >> > + device is a member of the group. >> >> So, shouldn't it rather be: "Whether the owner device itself is a member >> of the group depends on the type of the group." ? >> Or do we want to >> prefer the owner _not_ being a member of the group? > > Maybe I will drop this "In the future" thing. We'll cross that bridge > when we get to it. Ok, I think we can expand this later, if needed. > >> > +\item[Member identifier] >> > + each member has this identifier, unique within the group >> > + and used to address it through the owner device. >> > +\item[Group type identifier] >> > + specifies what kind of member devices there are in a >> > + group, how is the member identifier interpreted >> >> "how the member indentifier is interpreted, ..." >> >> > + and what kind of control does the owner have. >> >> s/does the owner have/the owner has/ >> >> > + At the moment, a given owner can control >> > + a single group of a given type, thus the type and >> > + the owner together identify the group. >> > + It is envisioned that this last restriction might be relaxed in the future, >> > + with multiple groups of the same type for a given owner. >> >> Hm... >> >> "A given owner may control a single group of a given type (which means >> that the type and the owner together identify the group), or multiple >> groups of the same type. Currently, only a single group per owner is >> supported." ? >> >> Basically, I'd prefer if we spelled out what is possible in general, and >> then add a comment that only a subset of the possibilities is currently >> implemented. > > I feel I went too broad here. Let's just drop the "It is envisioned" > for now. Ok, let's drop the "At the moment" prefix as well :)