RE: [virtio-dev] RE: [PATCH v12 03/10] content: Rename confusing queue_notify_data and vqn names

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 11:28 AM
> 
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 13:21:40 +0000
> Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 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:
> > >
> > Ok.
> > >
> > > 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".
> > >
> > Sounds fine. I will reword it.
> 
> FYI in an other thread I proposed calling this a "cookie". Sorry for being late to
> the party. Yet again.

If we spend (waste) more time, we will find many examples where "identifier" and "cookie" both are used in things associated with computer science.

That too when same set of people has accepted text " internal virtqueue identifier" for same feature of CONFIG_DATA even though somehow it was not "id"!
And when this spec refers to an RFC of UUID, session id (not "session cookie", even though session id is opaque and not meaningful to the recipient as per Wikipedia usage desc that you listed).

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.

Do you prefer to rename F_CONFIG_DATA To F_CONFIG_COOKIE?