[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-tuned Tx/Rx parameters

[Shreyansh Jain]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 8:14 PM
> To: Remy Horton <remy.horton at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Jingjing Wu
> <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Beilei Xing
> <beilei.xing at intel.com>; Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] ethdev: add support for PMD-
> tuned Tx/Rx parameters
> 
> On 3/7/2018 12:08 PM, Remy Horton wrote:
> > The optimal values of several transmission & reception related
> > parameters, such as burst sizes, descriptor ring sizes, and number
> > of queues, varies between different network interface devices. This
> > patch allows individual PMDs to specify preferred parameter values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Remy Horton <remy.horton at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 

[...]

> 
> > +	struct rte_eth_dev_pref_queue_info preferred_queue_values;
> 
> Although these are queue related values, not per-queue but per-port,
> the
> variable name "preferred_queue_values" gives the impression that these
> are per
> queue. And "rx_burst_size" is not related to queue at all I think.
> 
> What do you think renaming structure and variable name,
> "preferred_dev_config"
> perhaps?

I missed this naming while reading this patch.
In the deprecation notice, 'preferred_size' was the name we came up with precisely on this issue of structure having queue length and burst size.

What about using that same name?
 
> 
> >  };
> >
> >  /**
> >