Yes, Mark(Jing Chen) has mentioned some reasons as below, Basically the comments/description for 2 fields(start_rx_per_q and start_tx_per_q) is not clear, so we need add more. As for renaming, Mark has strong recommending to replace old one with new one. Both Huawei and I agree with the new name, from my respective, both(old and new one) are readable enough.
Thanks, Changchun -----Original Message----- From: Chen, Jing D Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:52 PM To: Thomas Monjalon; Ouyang, Changchun Cc: dev at dpdk.org Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Rename field name for RX/TX queue start/stop Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:38 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/3] Rename field name for RX/TX queue > start/stop > > Hi, > > 2014-07-22 15:47, Ouyang Changchun: > > This patch series include 3 things: > > 1) Rename the field name from start_rx_per_q to rx_enable_queue in > > struct rte_eth_rxconf, and do same thing for TX. > > This patch also update description for field rx_enable_queue and > tx_enable_queue. > > 2) According to 1), update field name from start_rx_per_q to > rx_enable_queue in struct igb_rx_queue > > in ixgbe PMD, do same thing for TX. > > 3) Update its reference in sample vhost. > > In order to be atomic (and do not break git bisect), you should submit > it in one patch. > Title would be "ethdev: rename queue enabler field" or something like that. > But the most important in such change is to explain why you make it. > > Thanks > -- > Thomas The reason adding this patch is that "start_rx_per_q" and "start_tx_per_q" has requirement in NIC driver in some cases. The implication includes: 1. don't fill mbuf address in RX ring in later dev start function call. 2. don't try to switch this rx/tx queues on in later dev start function call. Instead, application will call rte_eth_dev_rx/tx_queue_start/stop to control this queue. If the NIC driver tried to support these 2 options, it will have to satisfy above 2 conditions. But the problem is that the 2 fields definition don't have a word to claim on their requirement. So, we needs this patch and add comments. As for renaming, it's not so important. Just for better understanding.
