From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BA19256 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:20:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Sep 2016 00:20:45 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,298,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1052975629" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Sep 2016 00:20:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:21:14 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Xu, Qian Q" , Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <20160908072114.GL23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1471939839-29778-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3912C500@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20160906095548.GB23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <8433603.OGYCHmGCI2@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8433603.OGYCHmGCI2@xps13> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 07:20:46 -0000 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? --yliu