On 12/18/2017 09:43 AM, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> Hi Halil,
>
> On 2017/12/11 21:54, Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2017 01:56 PM, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/12/6 19:01, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/06/2017 08:37 AM, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
>>>>> +\field{outcome_len} is the size of struct virtio_crypto_session_input or
>>>>> +ZERO for the session-destroy operation.
>>>>
>>>> This ain't correct. It should have been something like
>>>> virtio_crypto_destroy_session_input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Halil,
>>>
>>> I already fixed this just now.
>>> Do you have any other comments on v22 ? I'll send v23 tomorrow if no. :)
>>>
>>
>> Did not read the rest of the document. I'm not in the middle of something,
>> but I wanted to read the operation part these days. I guess, you prefer
>> sending out v23 over waiting, so I guess I will wait for v23 then.
>>
>
> Sorry, I prefer to wait for more comments on v22.
>
OK, then I will read the whole thing.
>> Some general questions/remarks before you spin v23:
>>
>> * I'm not convinced about this 'header' and 'extra parameters' terminology.
>> Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Header_(computing) for header.
>> I don't think it's fitting for the _flf structs.
>> Same about the 'extra'. Please see
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extra
>> (a : more than is due, usual, or necessary : additional) the things in
>> _vlf aren't extra at all. Do you intend to stick with is terminology?
>> If yes why? Please explain how should I read/understand it so that it makes
>> sense!
>>
>
> I use 'fixed-length paramenters' instead of 'header' and 'variable-length
> parameters' instead of 'extra parameters' in certain places, but other places
> are forgotten.
>
> BTW, I think this isn't a big problem and structural defect, I hope native
> speakers could help us.
>
It isn't a big structural thing, but inconsistent wording can make
difficult to understand stuff even more difficult to understand.
This wording stuff is not a show-stopper for me.
>> * Do we want/need to specify any alignment requirement for the
>> stuff in guest storage (for instance the _flf fields) or be explicit
>> about no alignment should be assumed (e.g
>> virtio_crypto_mac_create_session_flf.algo
>> ain't necessarily aligned (in guest memory) as required by uint32_t)?
>>
>
> The _flf fields are all 32bit or 64bit.
>
What is your point? Please elaborate!
>> * I assume one request is supposed to correspond to one descriptor chain.
>> Right? If yes, could you tell me, where is this expressed in the spec.
>>
You have ignored this one. Michael said it's the default for the whole
spec, but I still don't know where is this requirement to be found
in the spec.
>> Halil
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
