OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC

v1->v2: * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1 * added r-b's * added bug tracker references Halil Pasic (2): ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1 introduction: simplify the designation of legacy content.tex 2 +- introduction.tex 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

The sentence designating the documents defining what later became known as the legacy virtio interface had the most important piece of information placed in parenthesis. Let's reword this sentence so we avoid using an ambiguous designation based on a relative anchor (i.e. 'earlier drafts of this specification') and just use the absolute anchor (version 1.0). VIRTIO-164 Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> --- introduction.tex 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex index 979881e..78c340d 100644 --- a/introduction.tex +++ b/introduction.tex @@ -78,8 +78,8 @@ The key words ``MUST'', ``MUST NOT'', ``REQUIRED'', ``SHALL'', ``SHALL NOT'', `` subsection{Legacy Interface: Terminology}label{intro:Legacy Interface: Terminology} -Earlier drafts of this specification (i.e. revisions before 1.0, -see e.g. hyperref[intro:Virtio PCI Draft]{[Virtio PCI Draft]}) +Specification drafts preceding version 1.0 of this specification +(e.g. see hyperref[intro:Virtio PCI Draft]{[Virtio PCI Draft]}) defined a similar, but different interface between the driver and the device. Since these are widely deployed, this specification -- 1.7.1

Revision 1 of the CCW transport is currently defined as virtio 1.0. This could become confusing when we bump the version of the virtio specification to 1.1, in a sense that it could be interpreted like one can not use any features not part of the 1.0 specification. So let us try to avoid confusion regarding the semantic of virtio-ccw revision 1. VIRTIO-163 Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> --- content.tex 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index c7ef7fd..86044dd 100644 --- a/content.tex +++ b/content.tex @@ -2572,7 +2572,7 @@ The following values are supported: hline hline 0 & 0 & <empty> & legacy interface; transitional devices only \ hline -1 & 0 & <empty> & Virtio 1.0 \ +1 & 0 & <empty> & Virtio 1 \ hline 2 & 0 & <empty> & CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS support \ hline -- 1.7.1

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote:
> v1->v2:
> * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1
> * added r-b's
> * added bug tracker references

thanks!
Once you feel this had enough review, pls move this status to
open and I will start the voting.

> Halil Pasic (2):
> ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1
> introduction: simplify the designation of legacy
>
> content.tex | 2 +-
> introduction.tex | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 01:44:06PM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: > v1->v2: > * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1 > * added r-b's > * added bug tracker references thanks! Once you feel this had enough review, pls move this status to open and I will start the voting. > Halil Pasic (2): > ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1 > introduction: simplify the designation of legacy > > content.tex 2 +- > introduction.tex 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> v1->v2:
> * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1
> * added r-b's
> * added bug tracker references
>
> Halil Pasic (2):
> ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1
> introduction: simplify the designation of legacy
>
> content.tex | 2 +-
> introduction.tex | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>

Changes look fine to me.

Some minor nits for the issues:
- I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions
(and not to the review versions?)
- Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field.

Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100 Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > v1->v2: > * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1 > * added r-b's > * added bug tracker references > > Halil Pasic (2): > ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1 > introduction: simplify the designation of legacy > > content.tex 2 +- > introduction.tex 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > Changes look fine to me. Some minor nits for the issues: - I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions (and not to the review versions?) - Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field. Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:27:39 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100
> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > v1->v2:
> > * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1
> > * added r-b's
> > * added bug tracker references
> >
> > Halil Pasic (2):
> > ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1
> > introduction: simplify the designation of legacy
> >
> > content.tex | 2 +-
> > introduction.tex | 4 ++--
> > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Changes look fine to me.
>
> Some minor nits for the issues:
> - I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions
> (and not to the review versions?)
> - Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field.
>
> Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting.

ping - do we want to start voting for this soon?

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:27:39 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100 > Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > v1->v2: > > * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1 > > * added r-b's > > * added bug tracker references > > > > Halil Pasic (2): > > ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1 > > introduction: simplify the designation of legacy > > > > content.tex 2 +- > > introduction.tex 4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Changes look fine to me. > > Some minor nits for the issues: > - I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions > (and not to the review versions?) > - Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field. > > Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting. ping - do we want to start voting for this soon?

On 02/28/2018 04:56 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:27:39 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100
>> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> v1->v2:
>>> * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1
>>> * added r-b's
>>> * added bug tracker references
>>>
>>> Halil Pasic (2):
>>> ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1
>>> introduction: simplify the designation of legacy
>>>
>>> content.tex | 2 +-
>>> introduction.tex | 4 ++--
>>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Changes look fine to me.
>>
>> Some minor nits for the issues:
>> - I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions
>> (and not to the review versions?)
>> - Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field.
>>
>> Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting.
>
> ping - do we want to start voting for this soon?
>

Thanks for the heads up. I will update jira today.

Regards,
Halil

On 02/28/2018 04:56 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:27:39 +0100 > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:44:06 +0100 >> Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> v1->v2: >>> * fixed ungrammatical commit title for #1 >>> * added r-b's >>> * added bug tracker references >>> >>> Halil Pasic (2): >>> ccw: be more precise about the semantic of revision 1 >>> introduction: simplify the designation of legacy >>> >>> content.tex 2 +- >>> introduction.tex 4 ++-- >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >> >> Changes look fine to me. >> >> Some minor nits for the issues: >> - I think the reported versions should only refer to released versions >> (and not to the review versions?) >> - Please add a "Proposed patch" reference in the Proposal: field. >> >> Otherwise, I think this is ready for voting. > > ping - do we want to start voting for this soon? > Thanks for the heads up. I will update jira today. Regards, Halil