On 03/29/2016 10:01 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/28/2016 04:43 AM, Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> From: Pavel Borzenkov <pborzenkov@...2319...> >> >> Add separate "Command flags" section to make it clear which flags are >> currently defined by the protocol. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Borzenkov <pborzenkov@...2319...> >> Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <rkagan@...2319...> >> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@...2317...> >> CC: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> >> CC: Eric Blake <eblake@...696...> >> CC: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...> >> --- >> doc/proto.md | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/doc/proto.md b/doc/proto.md >> index 036d6d9..662f741 100644 >> --- a/doc/proto.md >> +++ b/doc/proto.md >> @@ -485,6 +485,16 @@ The following request types exist: >> Currently one such message is known: `NBD_CMD_CACHE`, with type set to >> 5, implemented by xnbd. >> >> +#### Command flags >> + > > I think that this new content would belong better as a subsection under > '#### Flag Fields', alongside the mention of all other flags. I'm going > to propose a v2 of this patch with that alternate position, for comparison. Hmm, maybe not. I just looked again, and '#### Flag fields' is a subsection of '### Handshake phase', while you are correct that command flags belong to '### Transmission phase'. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature