[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] RE: [virtio-dev] RE: [PATCH v12 03/10] content: Rename confusing queue_notify_data and vqn names
On Fri, Apr 07 2023, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:58:55PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> For sure "cookie" is better than "config_data" and I don't have objection to "cookie". >> >> But I disagree to the claim that "identifier" is less good than "cookie". >> >> It is pointless debate of "identifier" vs "cookie". >> >> The union format is very useful to describe this crisply, I will use it. > > I guess I'm fine with "cookie" in that in CS it is by now widely > understood to mean "some opaque data". > identifier comes from "identical", so implies a 1:1 mapping IMO. Agreed, a "cookie" is not the same as an "identifier", although it may contain one. > > > The logic behind using a cookie is that it's a bit similar > to host cookie from ccw. > However, with ccw host cookie is used unconditionally, as > opposed to depending on the flag. > > > >> Do you prefer to rename F_CONFIG_DATA To F_CONFIG_COOKIE? > > It should all be consistent, but I worry about ccw which uses cookies > unconditionally. I am fine with leaving it as F_CONFIG_DATA for now > unless we see a good way to avoid confusion for ccw. Yes, please leave it as F_CONFIG_DATA, as we're just putting some "data" there in the end (and F_CONFIG_COOKIE might indeed be confusing for the ccw case.)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]