[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [PATCH v14 10/11] virtio-net: Describe RSS using rss rq id
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 11:54 AM > > The data type of the unclassified_queue is struct rss_rq id, so we don't need > to emphasis it again. > > oh, you can drop that: Bit 1 to 16 mechanics to be defined once in rss_rq_id definition. I don't want to repeat it 3 times for unclassified q, indirection table and on device side. So I didn't follow this comment about comment. > \field{struct rss_rq_id} contains a virtqueue index: > \field{vq_index_1_16} > consists of bits 1 to 16 of a virtqueue index. For example, a > \field{vq_index_1_16} value of 3 corresponds to virtqueue index 6, > which maps > to receiveq4. > > Field \field{unclassified_queue} contains the virtqueue index of the > receive > virtqueue to place unclassified packets in. > What is proposed is this patch is: "Field unclassified_queue _contains_ the receive virtqueue in which to place unclassified packets." This we can change to, Field unclassified_queue _specifies_ the receive virtqueue in which to place unclassified packets. > but in any case, there is no point in saying "\field{rss_rq_id} is a receive > virtqueue id." This concept of "receive virtqueue id" > is not really useful. > Without repeating text 3 times rss_rq_id serve the purpose. > > > > For example, we don't say, max_tx_vq is in le16 format. > > > > I am going to keep the current version as it is better than then extra > verbosity. > > Maybe "specifies" instead of "contains" then? > > +Field \field{unclassified_queue} specifies the receive virtqueue in > +which to place unclassified packets. > Yes "specifies" is good. This helps to define the format also at one place.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]