On 06/13/2016 01:22 AM, Andreas Scheuring wrote:
While reviewing [1] I got hung up on the terms "device" and "interface".
It seems like in sr-iov agent they are used in a different manner than
in the linuxbridge agent.
For Example the lb agent uses a config option
"physical_interface_mappings" (mapping between uplink interface for
bridge and physnet). A similar option in the sr-iov agent is named
"physical_device_mappings" (mapping between PF and physnet -> missing in
config reference for some reason [2]). In the l2 agent context, a
variable named device typically references to a port specific device
(e.g. the tap device) and not to a shared host device (like eth0).
As now patchset [1] introduces a new agent extension for lb & ovs agent
including a new config option "shared_physcial_device_mappings", I
really got a bit confused during the review as now in lb context
"device" is something different (namely a physical interface).
Would it make sense rename all the sr-iov options from *device* to
*interface* to stay consistent and to have a clear separation between
port specific and shared host devices?
My proposal is to name
- shared host device: interface
- port specific devices: device
I kind of think in the reverse, actually... For host physical devices, I
refer to them as devices. For Neutron port-specific stuff, I think of
them as interfaces (due to the relationship to "vnic" in my head...
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
