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);
>