2016-09-06 17:55, Yuanhan Liu: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:00:14AM +0000, Xu, Qian Q wrote: > > Just curious about the naming: vhost USER TX Zero copy. In fact, it's Vhost > > RX zero-copy > > For virtio, it's Virtio TX zero-copy. So, I wonder why we call it as Vhost > > TX ZERO-COPY, > > Any comments? > > It's just that "Tx zero copy" looks more nature to me (yes, I took the > name from the virtio point of view). > > Besides that, naming it to "vhost Rx zero copy" would be a little > weird, based on we have functions like "virtio_dev_rx" in the enqueue > path while here we just touch dequeue path. > > OTOH, I seldome say "vhost-user Tx zero copy"; I normally mention it > as "Tx zero copy", without mentioning "vhost-user". For the flag > RTE_VHOST_USER_TX_ZERO_COPY, all vhost-user flags start with "RTE_VHOST_USER_" > prefix.
I agree that the naming in vhost code is quite confusing. It would be better to define a terminology and stop mixing virtio/vhost directions as well as Rx/Tx and enqueue/dequeue. Or at least, it should be documented.
