> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 11:54 AM
> > The data type of the unclassified_queue is struct rss_rq id, so we don't
> > need
> to emphasis it again.
>
> oh, you can drop that:
Bit 1 to 16 mechanics to be defined once in rss_rq_id definition.
I don't want to repeat it 3 times for unclassified q, indirection table and on
device side.
So I didn't follow this comment about comment.
> \field{struct rss_rq_id} contains a virtqueue index:
> \field{vq_index_1_16}
> consists of bits 1 to 16 of a virtqueue index. For example, a
> \field{vq_index_1_16} value of 3 corresponds to virtqueue index 6,
> which maps
> to receiveq4.
>
> Field \field{unclassified_queue} contains the virtqueue index of the
> receive
> virtqueue to place unclassified packets in.
>
What is proposed is this patch is:
"Field unclassified_queue _contains_ the receive virtqueue in which to place
unclassified packets."
This we can change to,
Field unclassified_queue _specifies_ the receive virtqueue in which to place
unclassified packets.
> but in any case, there is no point in saying "\field{rss_rq_id} is a receive
> virtqueue id." This concept of "receive virtqueue id"
> is not really useful.
>
Without repeating text 3 times rss_rq_id serve the purpose.
>
>
> > For example, we don't say, max_tx_vq is in le16 format.
> >
> > I am going to keep the current version as it is better than then extra
> verbosity.
>
> Maybe "specifies" instead of "contains" then?
>
> +Field \field{unclassified_queue} specifies the receive virtqueue in
> +which to place unclassified packets.
>
Yes "specifies" is good. This helps to define the format also at one place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
