Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] docs: net: add an explanation of VF (and other) Representors

[Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>]

On 10/08/2022 18:58, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:02:33 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
>> On 09/08/2022 04:41, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> I'd use "host PF", somehow that makes most sense to me.  
>>
>> Not sure about that, I've seen "host" used as antonym of "SoC", so
>>  if the device is configured with the SoC as the admin this could
>>  confuse people.
> 
> In the literal definition of the word "host" it is the entity which
> "owns the place".

Sure, but as an application of that, people talk about e.g. "host"
 and "device" ends of a bus, DMA transfer, etc.  As a result of which
 "host" has come to mean "computer; server; the big rack-mounted box
 you plug cards into".
A connotation which is unfortunate once a single device can live on
 two separate PCIe hierarchies, connected to two computers each with
 its own hostname, and the one which owns the device is the cluster
 of embedded CPUs inside the card, rather than the big metal box.

>> I think whatever term we settle on, this document might need to
>>  have a 'Definitions' section to make it clear :S
> 
> Ack, to perhaps clarify my concern further, I've seen the term
> "management PF" refer to a PF which is not a netdev PF, it only
> performs management functions.

Yeah, I saw that interpretation as soon as you queried it.  I agree
 we probably can't use "management PF".

> So a perfect term would describe the privilege
> not the function (as the primary function of such PF should still
> networking).

I'm probably gonna get shot for suggesting this, but how about
 "master PF"?

-ed