On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 22:29 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 08:03:14PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > > Since this doesn't seem to be intended to have *any* connection with the > > existing core networking feature called RFS, perhaps you could find a > > different name for it. > > > > Ben. > > > Ah I see what you mean. We started out calling this feature "multiqueue" > Rusty suggested "RFS" since it gives similar functionality to RFS but in > device: it has receive steering logic per flow as part of the device.
The name is quite generic, but in the context of Linux it has so far been used for a specific software feature and not as a generic name for flow steering by hardware (or drivers). The existing documentation (Documentation/networking/scaling.txt) states quite clearly that 'RFS' means that specific software implementation (with optional driver integration) and configuration interface. > Maybe simply adding a statement similar to the one above would be > sufficient to avoid confusion? No, I don't think it's sufficient. We have documentation that says how to configure 'RFS', and you're proposing to add a very similar feature called 'RFS' that is configured differently. No matter how clearly you distinguish them in new documentation, this will make the old documentation confusing. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
