[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v13 03/11] content: Rename confusing queue_notify_data and vqn names
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 01:39:58PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:53:32 +0000 > Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > > > Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2023 11:42 PM > [..] > > > > > > > @@ -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. > > I think I got what you mean. I intend to double check it > in v14. > > > > > virtio_pci_common_cfg.queue_notify_data -> queue_notify_config_data. > > > > I have no strong opinion about this one. > > > 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? > > No strong opinion on this either. I agree with Michael that "NOTIF" > likely stands for "notification", but I also see your point: having > "notify" in the field names and "NOTIF" in the feature name isn't great > either. > > IMHO VIRTIO_F_NOTIFY_CONFIG_DATA should remain aligned with > VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA in one way or another. Thus way out would be > to do something like: > virtio_pci_common_cfg.queue_notify_data -> queue_notif_config_data > > I think as editors Connie and Michael should have the most say in this > though. > > Regards, > Halil Fine by me. -- MST
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]