On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:01:24AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:59:52PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> > >> > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> > >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 12:52 PM > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:50:09PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > >> > > Hence, it should be mentioned as read-only fields, so when the driver > >> > > writes > >> > something to read-only fields, it can be considered as undefined > >> > behavior on > >> > such fields. > >> > > > >> > > >> > In the description not in the normative statements. normative sections > >> > just tell > >> > driver what it must and must not do, in the standard RFC terms. > >> > > >> Got it. > >> I will shift them as read-only in the description section. > >> And normative in the device and driver section. > >> Device section: > >> Any writes to config space fields is ignored by the device, because these > >> are read-only fields for the driver. > > > > writes is plural so "are ignored" > > > > but more importantly use rfc terms in normative sections. > > I don't think you need to talk about "read-only" in the normative > sections (that belongs to the descriptive sections.) I'd use > > "The device MUST ignore any writes to config space fields by the > driver."
Hmm. Is this something we previously required for read only fields? > > > >> > >> Driver section: > >> Driver must not write to read-only fields. > > "The driver MUST NOT write to any config space field." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
