[xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] xsk: TX metadata txtime support

[Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>]

Song, Yoong Siang wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 6:46 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >On 12/1/23 07:24, Song Yoong Siang wrote:
> >> This series expands XDP TX metadata framework to include ETF HW offload.
> >>
> >> Changes since v1:
> >> - rename Time-Based Scheduling (TBS) to Earliest TxTime First (ETF)
> >> - rename launch-time to txtime
> >>
> >
> >I strongly disagree with this renaming (sorry to disagree with Willem).
> >
> >The i210 and i225 chips call this LaunchTime in their programmers
> >datasheets, and even in the driver code[1].
> >
> >Using this "txtime" name in the code is also confusing, because how can
> >people reading the code know the difference between:
> >  - tmo_request_timestamp and tmo_request_txtime
> >
> 
> Hi Jesper and Willem,
> 
> How about using "launch_time" for the flag/variable and
> "Earliest TxTime First" for the description/comments?  

I don't particularly care which term we use, as long as we're
consistent. Especially, don't keep introducing new synonyms.

The fact that one happens to be one vendor's marketing term does not
make it preferable, IMHO. On the contrary.

SO_TXTIME is in the ABI, and EDT has been used publicly in kernel
patches and conference talks, e.g., Van Jacobson's Netdev 0x12
keynote. Those are vendor agnostic commonly used terms.

But as long as Launch Time is not an Intel only trademark, fine to
select that.