On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 08:53:59PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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. I don't mind, renaming is just s/RFS/whatever/ away - how should hardware call this in your opinion? > -- > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
