2016-09-08 15:21, Yuanhan Liu: > 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?
Seems reasonable, yes.
