On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 06:00:36PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
I think we could/should avoid using Rx/Tx in vhost, but we should keep
the enqueue/dequeue: that's how the two key vhost API named.
> Or at least, it should be documented.
Or, how about renaming it to RTE_VHOST_USER_DEQUEUE_ZERO_COPY, to align
with the function name rte_vhost_dequeue_burst?
--yliu
