On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:15:02PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 20/10/2017 14:31, Santosh Shukla:
> > Rename buf_physaddr to buf_iovaaddr
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shu...@caviumnetworks.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> > ---
> [...]
> > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
> > @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf {
> > * same mbuf cacheline0 layout for 32-bit and 64-bit. This makes
> > * working on vector drivers easier.
> > */
> > - iova_addr_t buf_physaddr __rte_aligned(sizeof(iova_addr_t));
> > + iova_addr_t buf_iovaaddr __rte_aligned(sizeof(iova_addr_t));
>
> I really do not understand this naming scheme.
> The "A" of IOVA means Address. So "addr" in iovaaddr is redundant.
+1
ioaddr looks clearer than iovaaddr.
It could also be io_addr or bus_addr.
>
> It seems that IOVA is a too much famous acronym to avoid it.
> Unfortunately, there is no justification in the commit message.
> For the record, my preference was "IO address".
>
> We could at least add an underscore in iova_addr.
>
> But I will apply it as is because nobody else complained.
>
