Re: [PATCH v9 6/8] transport-ccw: Refer to the vq by its number

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Mar 28 2023, Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:

> Currently specification uses virtqueue index and
> number interchangeably to refer to the virtqueue.
>
> Instead refer to it by its number.
>
> Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/163
> Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>
>
> ---
> changelog:
> v8->v9:
> - replaced 'named' with 'known'
> - replaced 'queue number' with 'vq number'
> v3->v4:
> - moved note to comment
> v2->v3:
> - added comment note for queue_select similar to max_queue_size
> v0->v1:
> - new patch
> ---
>  transport-ccw.tex | 15 ++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/transport-ccw.tex b/transport-ccw.tex
> index 488c46c..0240db8 100644
> --- a/transport-ccw.tex
> +++ b/transport-ccw.tex
> @@ -236,12 +236,12 @@ \subsubsection{Configuring a Virtqueue}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Vir
>  
>  \begin{lstlisting}
>  struct vq_config_block {
> -        be16 index;
> +        be16 queue_select; /* Previously known as index */
>          be16 max_queue_size; /* Previously known as max_num */

Same comment regarding s/Previously/previously/ as for the last patch.

Also, I'm not that happy with the name "queue_select". Sure, it matches
what pci and mmio use, but ccw does not quite use the same mechanism:
vq_config_block is not a structure that always exists where the meaning
of the fields is controlled by a selector field, but a structure that is
provided by the caller and then filled to refer to a certain vq. I'd
prefer this field to be named "vq_num" or something like that.