On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:42:25PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:57 PM > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:36:18AM +0000, David Edmondson wrote: > > > > + for an enabled > > > > transmit/receive virtqueue whose > > number is \field{vqn}. > > > > > > Should this now be "whose index is \field{vqn}"? > > > > Ugh. I guess we'll have to fix the number/index mess in the spec first. > > Parav > > you said you are looking into it? > > Yes, I want to send v1 for " Rename queue index to queue number" series. > V1 will include, > > a. the vqn changes for net device rss and > b. other ccw changes that Cornelia requested. > c. extra note that you asked to add to mmio for referring the old naming > convention > > I guess we agree that it should be vqn. > Therefore, vq coalescing and aq series should progress with vqn terminology. > This way all 3 series can progress in parallel (aq, vq coalescing, current > spec cleanup).
Don't much care at this point but I think when I thought about this deeply it seemed that yes, it is marginally better. Don't remember why though ;) -- MST --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
