From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A325A38
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  6 Sep 2016 11:43:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
 by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2016 02:43:41 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,291,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="875493499"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
 by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Sep 2016 02:43:39 -0700
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:55:48 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160906095548.GB23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1471939839-29778-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1471939839-29778-6-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3912C500@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3912C500@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/6] vhost: add a flag to enable Tx zero copy
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 09:43:42 -0000

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.

	--yliu