Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] protocol-v2.txt: align delim-pkt spec with usage
Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com> writes:
> move delim-pkt from command-args to command-request
That is something we can read from the patch text. Can we explain what it means to the human readers? Let's read on the patch.
> Signed-off-by: Calvin Wan <calvinwan@google.com>
> Reported-by: Ivan Frade <ifrade@google.com>
These are reversed, aren't they? Chronologically what happened? Ivan reported, you wrote a patch, and then you signed it off before sending, no? Please align the order of the events with the order of the trailer lines.
Show 15 quoted lines
> ---
> Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt
> index 21e8258ccf..1e75863680 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-v2.txt
> @@ -125,11 +125,11 @@
> empty-request = flush-pkt
> command-request = command
> capability-list
> - [command-args]
> + delim-pkt
> + command-args
Are these meant to be unaligned like this? In this project, a HT always jumps to the next multiple-of-8 column.
Show 5 quoted lines
> flush-pkt
> command = PKT-LINE("command=" key LF)
> - command-args = delim-pkt
> - *command-specific-arg
> + command-args = *command-specific-argOK, so we used to say, after the capability list, there may be a command-args, or no command-args. And a command-args begins with a delim-pkt followed by zero or more command specific args.
We now say after the capability list, there always is a delim-pkt and zero or more command specific args will follow.
So, the difference (fix) is that the original production allowed a command-request that ends with capability list (without a final delim-pkt), but we require delim-pkt after capability-list, whether there is any command-specific-args?
If so, perhaps the human-readable rewrite of the proposed log message would be
The current protocol EBNF allows command-request to end with the
capability list, if no command specific arguments follow, but
the protocol requires that after the capability list, there must
be a delim-pkt regardless of the number of command speficic
arguments. Fix the EBNF to match.By the way, what are we matching this document to with this change? Our over-the-wire protocol implementation? I am asking because it would mean that we may be retroactigvely changing the rules under other implementations, making what used to be allowed now invalid.
Calvin Wan