On Thu, Feb 23 2023, Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote: > 1. Currently, virtqueue is identified between driver and device > interchangeably using either number of index terminology. > > 2. Between PCI and MMIO transport the queue size (depth) is > defined as queue_size and QueueNum respectively. > > To avoid confusion and to have consistency, unify them to use as Number. > > Solution: > Use virtqueue number description, and rename MMIO register as QueueSize. > > Patch summary: > patch-1 renames index to number for pci transport > patch-2 renames mmio register from Num to Size > patch-3 renames index to number for mmio transport > > Please review. > This series fixes the issue [1]. > > This series is on top of [2]. > > [1] https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/163 > [2] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-dev/202302/msg00527.html > > --- > Cornelia: > I was not sure about ccw for vq_config_block and vq_info_block structures > index field refers to the queue number or not. > Can you please clarify? > > If it vqn, I will send v1 by replacing index to vqn to be > consistent with other part of the spec which also uses vqn.
The vq_*_block structures use "index" for the vq index/number and "num" for the number of buffers (queue size). I'm wondering what terminology we should standardize on. For the size of the queue, we have queue_size, QueueNum, and num. Calling it some variation of "queue size" and mentioning that it refers to the number of buffers makes sense. For the vq index/number, I'm not that sure that "virtqueue number" is better that "virtqueue index" -- actually, I'd prefer the latter. We'd need some renaming either way. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org