Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] server extension: PCIe requirements

Mayuresh Chitale

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 4:06 AM Greg Favor <gfavor@...> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:58 PM Atish Patra <atish.patra@...> wrote:
On Fri, 2021-07-09 at 23:04 +0530, Mayuresh Chitale wrote:

> +====== PCIe cache coherency
> +PCIe transactions that are not marked as No_snoop and access memory
> that is

Greg had few suggestion to change this statement.

"PCIe transactions that are marked with a No Snoop bit of zero and
access memory.."

Yes, this updated/improved text should be used in place of the version in the patch.  (Among other things, this avoids the above double-negative and addresses a concern against using "No_snoop" - which isn't universally used.)

Whether we use "No_snoop" (like ARM does) or "No Snoop" (like other people use), or use "No_Snoop", I don't have a strong leaning.  Maybe "No_Snoop" is a reasonable middle ground?

Yes, I think this is reasonable.


Join { to automatically receive all group messages.