Re: [PATCH v7 20/27] udp: Create flows for datagrams from originating sockets

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:59:08 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:32:02AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > Nits only, here:
> > 
> > On Fri,  5 Jul 2024 12:07:17 +1000
> > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > + * @c:		Execution context
> > > + * @proto:	Protocol of the flow (IP L4 protocol number)
> > > + * @pif:	Interface of the flow
> > > + * @esa:	Socket address of the endpoint
> > > + * @fport:	Forwarding port number
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: sidx of the matching flow & side, FLOW_SIDX_NONE if not found
> > > + */
> > > +flow_sidx_t flow_lookup_sa(const struct ctx *c, uint8_t proto, uint8_t pif,
> > > +			   const void *esa, in_port_t fport)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct flowside fside = {  
> > 
> > And the "f" in "fside" stands for "forwarding"... I don't have any
> > quick fix in mind, and it's _kind of_ clear anyway, but this makes me
> > doubt a bit about the "forwarding" / "endpoint" choice of words.  
> 
> Heh, no, here "fside" is simply short for "flowside".  Every flowside
> has both forwarding and endpoint elements.

Oh, I thought you called it fside here because you're setting the
forwarding part of it directly, or something like that.

> So it is confusing, but
> for a different reason.  I need to find a different convention for
> naming struct flowside variables.  I'd say 'side', but sometimes
> that's used for the 1-bit integer indicating which side in a flow.
> 
> Hrm.. now that pif has been removed from here, maybe I could rename
> struct flowside back to 'flowaddrs' or 'sideaddrs' perhaps?

That's also confusing because it contains ports too (even though sure,
in some sense they're part of the address). I would suggest keeping it
like it is in for this series, but after that, if it's not too long,
what about flow_addrs_ports?

Actually, I don't think flowside is that bad. What I'm struggling with
is rather 'forwarding' and 'endpoint'. I don't have any good suggestion
at the moment, anyway. Using 'local' and 'remote' (laddr/lport,
raddr/rport) would be clearer to me and avoid the conflict with 'f' of
flowside, but you had good reasons to avoid that, if I recall correctly.

-- 
Stefano