> From: Halil Pasic <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 12:29 PM > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 23:24:22 +0800 > Heng Qi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal_vq { > > + le16 vqn; > > + le16 reserved; > > + struct virtio_net_ctrl_coal coal; }; > > + > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL 6 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_TX_SET 0 > > #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_RX_SET 1 > > + #define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_SET 2 #define > > + VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_NOTF_COAL_VQ_GET 3 > > \end{lstlisting} > > > > Coalescing parameters: > > \begin{itemize} > > +\item \field{vqn}: The virtqueue number of an enabled transmit or receive > virtqueue. > > Just to be on the safe side: VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA has been > negotiated, and queue_select != queue_notify_data, is vqn supposed to contain > queue_notify_data or the number/index that is used for queue_select (I'm > talking about the PCI transport case)? Vqn has zero relation to notification config data feature and featue bit. It is the real vqn enabled via queue_select.
Once the vqn is renamed to vq_notify_id, we won't have this confusion anymore. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
