On 11/04/2018 04:19, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:11:25AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> Let us unify the wording when talking about notifications. This change
>> establishes the terms available buffer notification for what was usually
>> simply called notification or virtqueue notification in v1.0 and used
>> buffer notification for what was usually called interrupt.
>>
>> The term configuration change notification in kept where called so and
>> consolidated where it's called configuration change interrupt or
>> similar.
>>
>> The changes done here are limited to the core part, and don't
>> conceptually involve neither the transports nor the devices (references
>> are updated though). Future changes should address these parts.
>
> Nice, I think the cleanup is worthwhile.
I agree. I wondered if we should use the term "used buffer interrupt"
and "available buffer notification". In the common case I think it
would be clearer, though there are cases such as vhost-pci where the
roles are swapped.
Paolo
>> \begin{lstlisting}
>> -virtq_disable_interrupts(vq);
>> +virtq_disable_notifications(vq);
>
> This name is ambiguous. Only used buffer notifications are disabled,
> not configuration change notifications.
>
> How about:
>
> virtq_disable_used_buffer_notifications(vq);
>
