venugopal iyer wrote: > > Thanks, Darren. > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Darren Reed wrote: > >> On 18/09/09 12:29 PM, Kais Belgaied wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> + rxringavailcnt >>> >>> + A read-only property that specifies the number of rings >>> available >>> + on the receive side. >>> >>> + rxringcnt >>> >>> + Specifies the number of receive rings side for the MAC >>> client. >>> + A value of 0 means this MAC client should not be assigned >>> any RX >>> + ring. A non-0 value means reserve that many rings for this >>> MAC >>> + client, if available, and fail if not. If this property is not >>> + specified the MAC client may get one RX ring, if available, or >>> + will be software based. >>> + >>> + rxhwavailclnt >>> + >>> + A read-only property that specifies the number of additional >>> + RX hardware-based MAC clients that can be created. >>> + >>> + txringavailcnt >>> + >>> + A read-only property that specifies the number of rings >>> available >>> + on the transmit side. >>> + >>> + txringcnt >>> + >>> + Specifies the number of transmit rings for the MAC client. >>> + A value of 0 means this MAC client should not be assigned >>> need any >>> + TX ring. A non-0 value means reserve that many rings for >>> this MAC >>> + client, if available, and fail if not. If this property is not >>> + specified the MAC client may get one TX ring, if available, or >>> + will be software based. >>> + >>> + txhwavailclnt >>> + >>> + A read-only property that specifics the number of additional >>> + TX hardware-based MAC clients that can be created. >>> + >>> + >>> >> >> The only comment I have is the naming, specifically the "cnt" and >> "clnt" on the end, seems ... I don't know... awkward/cumbersome? >> >> For example, "rxringavailclnt" and "rxringcnt" both are associated >> with mac client but only one mentions "clnt" in its name. > > I think you mean rxhwavailclnt and rxringcnt, right? > If so, then rxhwavailclnt is the number of clients that can be created > and we > wanted to have the client in the name, I can add cnt to rxhwavailclnt > if that > makes it any better. > >> >> Additionally, they are all a "count" of something, so "cnt" should be >> present on all, right? > > yes, they are counts. As mentioned above if rxhwavailclntcnt and > txhwavailclntcnt makes it better, I am fine with it.
And that is the point, these names look awful :-( For example, if you look through any of statistics in kstat, you generally don't see "cnt" or "count". >> I'd like to suggest thinking of simpler names that do not include >> redundant information such as "clnt" and "cnt." >> >> For example, if "rxringcnt" became "rxrings", is any meaning really >> lost? > > We started off with rxrings, but wanted to make it explicit that it is > the number or rx rings and not, say, as ring index. If it was just "rxring", then perhaps I would agree that maybe it might be something else... But, for example, we have "Inbound Packets", not "Inbound Packet Count" in "netstat -i" output. To me, the label "rxrings" does not imply it could be about anything else but rx rings. If it were to be about an index, then it would be "rxringindex" or "rxringindexes" - the name becomes more specific. Darren
