Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v13 03/11] content: Rename confusing queue_notify_data and vqn names

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 08:53:32PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > @@ -1053,9 +1059,9 @@ \subsubsection{Available Buffer
> > > Notifications}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Option  If
> > VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA has been negotiated:
> > >  \begin{itemize}
> > >  \item If VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA has not been negotiated, the
> > > driver MUST use the -\field{queue_notify_data} value instead of the virtqueue
> > index.
> > > +\field{queue_notify_id} value instead of the virtqueue index.
> > >  \item If VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA has been negotiated, the driver
> > > MUST set the -\field{vqn} field to the \field{queue_notify_data} value.
> > > +\field{vq_notify_id} field to the \field{queue_notify_id} value.
> > 
> > Seems you did not catch these with the s/_id/_config_data/. By doing the
> > replace one would get queue_notify_config_data, vq_notify_config_data and
> > queue_notify_config_data respectively.
> > 
> > But that still does not seem right, and the right answer depends on to what do
> > we rename \field{vqn}.
> > 
> vqn -> vq_notif_config_data in the notification structure.
> 
> virtio_pci_common_cfg.queue_notify_data -> queue_notify_config_data.
> 
> Better to rename
> 
> VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA to VIRTIO_F_NOTIFY_CONFIG_DATA.
> Adding "Y" is not going to make it that long. Field names will have some consistency.
> WDYT?

I think this NOTIF stands for "notification", not "notify".

-- 
MST