> From: Brett Creeley <bcreeley@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 3:10 PM
>
> On 7/21/2023 2:01 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
> caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> >
> >
> >> From: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@xxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 6:35 AM
> >>
> >> @@ -34,12 +34,13 @@ enum pds_core_vif_types {
> >>
> >> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_CORE_STR "Core"
> >> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR "vDPA"
> >> -#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR "VFio"
> >> +#define PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR "vfio"
> >> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_ETH_STR "Eth"
> >> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_RDMA_STR "RDMA"
> >> #define PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "LM"
> >>
> >> #define PDS_VDPA_DEV_NAME "."
> >> PDS_DEV_TYPE_VDPA_STR
> >> +#define PDS_LM_DEV_NAME PDS_CORE_DRV_NAME "."
> >> PDS_DEV_TYPE_LM_STR "." PDS_DEV_TYPE_VFIO_STR
> >>
> >
> > then should the name be changed to PDS_VFIO_LM_DEV_NAME?
> >
> > Or is mentioning *LM* important? what would be the problem to just
> > use "pds_core.vfio"?
>
> LM is important for the device. I don't plan to change this.
What about in the future VDPA also wants to gain migration support?
with VFIO_STR in the name does it make more sense to at least
define the name as PDS_VFIO_LM_DEV_NAME?
