Re: [PATCH v12 03/10] content: Rename confusing queue_notify_data and vqn names

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 05 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 04:06:50AM +0300, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
>> index cd93db2..d5f8026 100644
>> --- a/content.tex
>> +++ b/content.tex
>> @@ -405,8 +405,18 @@ \section{Driver Notifications} \label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device /
>>  notification to the device.
>>  
>>  When VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA has not been negotiated,
>> -this notification involves sending the
>> -virtqueue index to the device (method depending on the transport).
>> +this notification involves sending only the 16-bit virtqueue notification
>> +identifier (notification method depends on the transport).
>> +
>> +\begin{itemize}
>> +\item When VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA is not negotiated, virtqueue
>> +notification identifier is a 16-bit vq index.
>> +
>> +\item When VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA is negotiated, virtqueue
>> +notification identifier is a device supplied virtqueue identifier. A method
>> +to supply such virtqueue notification identifier is transport
>> +specific.
>> +\end{itemize}
>>  
>>  However, some devices benefit from the ability to find out the
>>  amount of available data in the queue without accessing the virtqueue in memory:
>
>
> VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA is such a narrow usecase, I don't like
> burning "vq identifier" on this. How about we just say something
> along the lines of:
>
>
> When VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA has not been negotiated, this
> notification involves sending either the virtqueue index or the
> virtqueue config data to the device (method depending on the
> transport).
>
> And then "the data sent is a device supplied virtqueue config data".

Agreed, referring to "virtqueue configuration data" or somesuch is
better than using up the "vq identifier" name for it.