From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] vhost: add a flag to enable Tx zero copy
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 09:57:59 +0200
Message-ID: <2422340.23e7AzUA4K@xps13>
References: <1471939839-29778-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <8433603.OGYCHmGCI2@xps13> <20160908072114.GL23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CAF91F1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Sep 2016 09:58:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w12so20214227wmf.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160908072114.GL23158@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-09-08 15:21, Yuanhan Liu:
> 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?

Seems reasonable, yes.