On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 22:08 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > On Jul 29 21:45, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 15:37 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > > > On Jul 29 13:43, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 08:12 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote: > > > > > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT8("aerl", NvmeCtrl, params.aerl, 3), > > > > So this is number of AERs that we allow the user to be outstanding > > > > > > Yeah, and per the spec, 0's based. > > > > > > > > + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("aer_max_queued", NvmeCtrl, > > > > > params.aer_max_queued, 64), > > > > And this is the number of AERs that we keep in our internal AER queue > > > > untill user posts and AER so that we > > > > can complete it. > > > > > > > > > > Correct. > > > > Yep - this is what I understood after examining all of the patch, but from > > the names itself it is hard to understand this. > > Maybe a comment next to property to at least make it easier for advanced > > user (e.g user that reads code) > > to understand? > > > > (I often end up reading source to understand various qemu device > > parameters). > > > > I should add this in docs/specs/nvme.txt (which shows up in one of my > next series when I add a new PCI id for the device). For now, I will add > it to the top of the file like the rest of the parameters. This is a good idea! > > Subsequent series contains a lot more additions of new parameters that > is directly from the spec and to me it really only makes sense that they > share the names if they can. > > We could consider having them under a "spec namespace"? So, say, we do > DEFINE_PROP_UINT("spec.aerl", ...)? I personally tend to think that it won't make it much more readable.
Best regards, Maxim Levitsky >