On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:46:47PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 03:40:55PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> One general comment: RFC 2119 should appear in confirmance statements,
> and these should appear in confirmance clauses, separately
> for device and driver. Sometimes, this causes a bit of
> duplication. Text outside confirmance clauses should not
> use RFC 2119 words - the point of this rule is to make
> it easier to notice something that should be a confirmance statement.
>
> For example, networking device has:
> \item \field{num_buffers} is set to zero. This field is unused on
> transmitted packets.
>
> and then later we have
> \drivernormative{\paragraph}{Packet Transmission}{Device Types / Network
> Device / Device Operation / Packet Transmission}
>
> The driver MUST set \field{num_buffers} to zero.
>
>
> and this paragraph is linked from the correct normative statements section
> (in conformance.tex).
>
> the should also be a subsection listing normative statements
> for your device.
Okay.
> > ---
> > trunk/content.tex | 152 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 152 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/trunk/content.tex b/trunk/content.tex
> > index d989d98..8b5b520 100644
> > --- a/trunk/content.tex
> > +++ b/trunk/content.tex
> > @@ -5641,6 +5641,158 @@ descriptor for the \field{sense_len}, \field{residual},
> > \field{status_qualifier}, \field{status}, \field{response} and
> > \field{sense} fields.
> >
> > +\section{VSock Device}\label{sec:Device Types / VSock Device}
>
> I think we should call it "Socket Device" in free text. Avoid
> abbreviations. While "v" in vsock seems somewhat redundant, you can keep
> virtio_vsock in code snippets if you prefer.
Okay.
